Zelensky's Finest Hour

[Juin]

He seems better. Churchill, though acceptable in his day, would be too elite now to be this lovable.

Cannot agree more. Churchill was too much of the Patrician class. Zelensky is vintage populare

 

[Juin]

Zelensky has balls made of adamantium.
Godspeed and Good Luck to him.

LOL Maybe we should henceforth call Zelensky Iron Testicles

 

[choiceone]

It seems to be in my dna. One can say I am a Russophile. But it is not so much the specific Russo/Ukrainian conflict as Russia's own larger objection to its marginalisation by the more powerful Nato

This is silly. Russia needs to get rid of its awful leadership in order not to be marginalized. The scholars I have read in relation to some research I've been doing is brilliant; Russians I've met here in the US are perfectly decent. Just ditch the dictators, Russian mafia, and luxury-wallowers and it'll be a great civilization. We have crappy people, too, but we always get better when we get them out of power. Every nation has this problem.

 

[TheParser]

He'll be known 200 years ago, when Putin can be a minor joke.

Yes, I know that it is improbable.

But wouldn't it be really humorous if he went down in history as the comedian who brought down a Russian tyrant?

 

[choiceone]

If he leaves then nothing is accomplished. It will be a matter of days and the world will just focus on something else. In a few weeks there will be no news out of Ukraine and nobody will even remember what Putin did. Everyone will just go back to their daily lives until Trump says something about elections and then that will be billed as the end of the world because EVERYTHING is about Trump no matter how removed from reality it might be.

I think this is more serious than you do. If Putin finished with Ukraine, he'd go on, because he wouldn't be finished bringing back the pieces of the Russian/Soviet empire, which he clearly wants. I'm not sure whether he's go for Kazakhstan or keep picking off Eastern European countries. Trump is the one who is over. He'll be ready for prison in no time.

 

[choiceone]

No. NATO is the most powerful military power in the history of the world and the Russians have said no to it entering Ukraine since 2008 when it was stated that one day, it and Georgia, will be member states.

To claim it is defensive you need only to ask Iraqis or Afghans but nobody does because they aren't white folk

1. The only reason for the extended stay of forces in Afghanistan was that the Northern Alliance invited them, more specifically the US, which only went in to begin with because the Taliban were hosting Bin Laden.

2. The only reason for the US forces in Iraq was George Bush, Jr. No one else wanted him to go in there, and he was elected by the electoral college that time, not by a majority of Americans.

Don't blame NATO for the stupidity.

The main reason that Ukraine looked to NATO instead of Russia is that Russia was run by an authoritarian regime and Ukraine was trying to become something better. If Russia had aspired to something better, it would have inspired people to want to partner with Russia. No one likes dictators unless they have an SM complex.

 

[Juin]

This is silly. Russia needs to get rid of its awful leadership in order not to be marginalized. The scholars I have read in relation to some research I've been doing is brilliant; Russians I've met here in the US are perfectly decent. Just ditch the dictators, Russian mafia, and luxury-wallowers and it'll be a great civilization. We have crappy people, too, but we always get better when we get them out of power. Every nation has this problem.

Russia has had Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin since the implosion of the Soviet Union. All three expressed anxiety over Nato taking advantage of the implosion to push closer to Russia. I dont think the Russian concern over invasions coming from the west is Putin specific. It goes back as far as the Czars.

 

[choiceone]

When I pulled up at the gas station I was reminded strongly of why I am a certified Trumpist. The gas was all north of $5. One may hate Trump all one wants over his eccentricities; but I can say I consider him 100% correct on energy policies.

Actually, no. Yes, it's nice to have cheap gas, but, e.g., no one needs the Keystone pipeline for that, and that pipeline was dangerous to one-third of the two-thirds of arable land that the US has left. It also violated a treaty with a Native American nation in South Dakota, and if it hadn't been stopped by Biden, it could very well have been stopped by the courts. And it should be stopped. We don't need it all over the internet that the US broke yet another treaty with Native Americans. Ask all the oil/gas companies why, when they have hundreds of leases on federal lands for drilling, they have to have TC Corp's offer.

Agree. In the end his duty as President is to serve Ukraine in the best possible way. And if one argues that Ukraine will still be fighting even after Russia occupies the whole country, then he should be there with the fighters. And he cannot be there with the fighters if he is dead in Kiev. He should die only if it cannot be helped. He should live, because the fight can only be carried on by those who chose to live

I want to agree with this because I want him to live in this world. However, I'm also aware that, in saying, "I need more ammunition, not a ride," he became someone who will live forever, regardless of what happens to his body. So I do not see him failing to lead the fight if his body isn't in this world. I just want him to stay here.

 

[choiceone]

Yes, I know that it is improbable.

But wouldn't it be really humorous if he went down in history as the comedian who brought down a Russian tyrant?

I, too, prefer non-intellectualist happy endings.

 

[Juin]

1. The only reason for the extended stay of forces in Afghanistan was that the Northern Alliance invited them, more specifically the US, which only went in to begin with because the Taliban were hosting Bin Laden.

Ukraine is also hosting Zelensky, is that a good reason for Putin to invade ?

2. The only reason for the US forces in Iraq was George Bush, Jr. No one else wanted him to go in there, and he was elected by the electoral college that time, not by a majority of Americans.

The US Forces in Iraq were legitimate forces, and recognised as such internationally, as legitimate US Forces.

Don't blame NATO for the stupidity.

In a way Nato is the US. Without the US, Nato is an empty shell. But I do not see how the US is solely to blame for any stupidity. The present Secretary General of Nato is a gentleman from Norway, a Jens Stoltenberg. A dangerous neocon. A believer in the neo Nato doctrine of unfettered expansion. Jens Stoltenberg articulates best the more hard nosed necon segment of Nato. The ones who see Nato as imbuebed with a Manifest Destiny to bring light, civilisation, democracy from sea to shining sea.

The main reason that Ukraine looked to NATO instead of Russia is that Russia was run by an authoritarian regime and Ukraine was trying to become something better. If Russia had aspired to something better, it would have inspired people to want to partner with Russia. No one likes dictators unless they have an SM complex.

Dont you have to deal with Russia as it is, or you will rather deal with a Russia that does not exist?

 

[choiceone]

Russia has had Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin since the implosion of the Soviet Union. All three expressed anxiety over Nato taking advantage of the implosion to push closer to Russia. I dont think the Russian concern over invasions coming from the west is Putin specific. It goes back as far as the Czars.

So far as I am aware, the only people who had imperialist dreams about Russia were the czars and the Japanese. Nobody from Western Europe ever tried to take over Russia. What is the paranoia coming from?

 

[choiceone]

Ukraine is also hosting Zelensky, is that a good reason for Putin to invade ?

Ukraine is not "hosting" Zelensky. He is Ukrainian. And the only good reason for Putin to dislike him is envy. Putin has a cultivated old-fashioned image of a macho strongman. Zelensky's image is different. He doesn't have to cultivate an image of masculinity - he just IS a man, and the more attractive for that casual image of one. I can't even imagine anyone from the 1970s onward who wouldn't prefer Zelensky.

The US Forces in Iraq were legitimate forces, and recognised as such internationally, as legitimate US Forces.

I do not think any of what happened in Iraq was legitimate. Bush, Jr., went into Iraq on the thinnest of pretexts, without any adequate evidence that Hussein was harboring terrorists related to 9/11. Huge numbers of Americans were outraged that he did. I still remember the protest signs in Germany: "No war for oil."

In a way Nato is the US. Without the US, Nato is an empty shell.

Agreed. But largely because it has no other leader.

But I do not see how the US is solely to blame for any stupidity. The present Secretary General of Nato is a gentleman from Norway, a Jens Stoltenberg. A dangerous neocon. A believer in the neo Nato doctrine of unfettered expansion. Jens Stoltenberg articulates best the more hard nosed necon segment of Nato. The ones who see Nato as imbuebed with a Manifest Destiny to bring light, civilisation, democracy from sea to shining sea.

I am ignorant regarding Stoltenberg. But I would bet money (and hardly have any) that NATO has a neocon because we have had too many Republican presidents in the last 20 years, and that this will change as we do.

Dont you have to deal with Russia as it is, or you will rather deal with a Russia that does not exist?

Of course to both questions. Right now, one has to deal with Russia under Putin as he is now. I doubt that a 69 year old guy is going to change, but eventually, he's not going to be in charge of Russia, a Russia that does not exist right now.

 

[maxparrish]

Expansionism is inconsistent with a defensive posture. An armed man, any armed man is a threat, even if its Mother Theresa. We can all agree that Mother Theresa is completely harmless, but if you see her packing a piece then she is a potential threat. What stops her from flipping the next minute and unloading the piece?

There is a Russian perspective. Taking just the general Ukrainian area; the nearest Nato outpost is on Ukraine's border with Poland; hundreds of miles away from the Russian border with Ukraine. If Ukraine joins Nato then Nato's furthest outpost moves hundreds of miles closer to Russia, and will be sitting just a few miles away from Rostov, a Russian city. How can you say that that doesnt pose a threat?

And what stops the Nato you consider defensive all of a sudden turning hostile on Russia? Of course, not.

I live in Peril. It's a very rough and often dangerous town, there isn't any police force or judicial system. The mafia would like to run this town, but our neighborhood has been an enclave committed to self-protection and have managed to survive. Then after 70 plus years of murder and extortion the tyranny of the Mafia finally fractured and lost power, giving many the other Mafia controlled neighborhoods around us a chance to break free and expand our ability to defend ourselves.

The latest Godfather is angry over that, he remembers the way it used to be. Vito Putinvesie once vowed to bring back the old ways, but neighborhoods have formed a self-defense alliance, making it more difficult to do that. Vito Putinvesie can't tolerate losing any more traditional victims of his gang. If one more neighborhood gets off his knees, why he will just have to murder them all.

So he's telling his criminal ranks and their admirers "hey our Maifia are the victims, to expand self-defense is inconsistent with self-defense".

And here is the kicker, there are actually people who buy this as a justification for invading the neighborhoods. No really.

 

[Juin]

I live in Peril. It's a very rough and often dangerous town, there isn't any police force or judicial system. The mafia would like to run this town, but our neighborhood has been an enclave committed to self-protection and have managed to survive. Then after 70 plus years of murder and extortion the tyranny of the Mafia finally fractured and lost power, giving many the other Mafia controlled neighborhoods around us a chance to break free and expand our ability to defend ourselves.

The latest Godfather is angry over that, he remembers the way it used to be. Vito Putinvesie once vowed to bring back the old ways, but neighborhoods have formed a self-defense alliance, making it more difficult to do that. Vito Putinvesie can't tolerate losing any more traditional victims of his gang. If one more neighborhood gets off his knees, why he will just have to murder them all.

So he's telling his criminal ranks and their admirers "hey our Maifia are the victims, to expand self-defense is inconsistent with self-defense".

And here is the kicker, there are actually people who buy this as a justification for invading the neighborhoods. No really.

Good analogy. Though I see it differently.

Your analogy has only one crime family. There are many. And they go back centuries. There is the Bismark crime family. There is the Louis crime family. There is the Saxon crime family in Great Britain. And its offspring Uncle Sam across the pond. And of course the Moscow crime family.

These Ruffians have pillaged and robed their way around the globe for centuries. And fought each over at times over booty. At times just to stay in shape. The last conflict was a major one. And at the end was left two capo di tutti capi. The American capo sat over the old crime familes to the west. And to the east Moscow was the capo di tutti capi.

And you know the rest of the story.

The Moscow crime family fractured as you pointed out. The rump family was still a dangerous foe. The capos of the American crime family would not countenance even a rump Moscow crime family. At every opportunity the capos of America would encroach a bit more on ole turfs once run by the Moscow crime family. This irritated the Moscow crime family big time. The more the American crime family approached even turf legitimately belonging to the Moscow crime family, the irritation of the Moscow crime family exploded to dangerous levels.

Ukraine was one turf too far for the Moscow crime family

 

[oneworld2]

The whole thing is academic and not in accord with history at all. Let me say this: throughout history, any time a powerful military power, from afar, contracts an alliance with one's small neighbour, it rings all kinds of alarm bells.

Its right there in Imperialism 101. Ask her Britannic Majesty. Quite accomplished in the fine arts of Imperialism. Britain never had a big army at all. Britain did not marshall a huge army to take down India. She contracted alliances with little kingdoms which had been under the subjugation of other more powerful maharajas. When these maharajas objected, the British then funded the arming of the underdogs to take down the powerful maharajas. That is how little England came to rule the world. Mastery of the fine art of Imperialism.

I agree, the imperialist play book is one of alliances and throwing people under the bus once they gave out served their usefulness. The Ujrainains have been useful and now they are ok to be thrown under the bus, at least for the time being. That's what I find sickening about the coverage, It would be easier to find a ton of rocking horse shit than to find any mention now of just how used by the West the Ukrainians have been while everyone at the top, who knew this btw, looks the other way, hands on cheeks, and decries the horro show now unfolding

 

[oneworld2]

What right does Putin have to make such demands?

The same right Kennedy had for saying no to the missiles in Cuba that were a response to US missiles in Turkey, they pose a significant threat to their nations.

That Iraq shouldn't be allowed WMDs?

What right has the USA or anyone else to say that Iran cannot be allowed a nuclear deterrent?

Or that the Palestinians can't have a state of their own?

The list goes on and on.

 

[oneworld2]

1. The only reason for the extended stay of forces in Afghanistan was that the Northern Alliance invited them, more specifically the US, which only went in to begin with because the Taliban were hosting Bin Laden.

Oh please.

So if it came out that the seperatists in Donbas had " invited" the Russian army to stay in Ukraine and occupy it for 20 years, install a puppet regime in Kiev, you would be supportive of that, right?

The Taliban offered to hand over OBL if evidence were to be provided that he was responsible for the attacks, that offer was rejected out of hand, against international law btw, and the invasion went ahead. If you believe that a 20 years war and occupation, the installation of a puppet government on people that had FA to do with 9/11, was a proportionate response to those attacks I'm afraid you must be lost to your own propaganda

2. The only reason for the US forces in Iraq was George Bush, Jr. No one else wanted him to go in there, and he was elected by the electoral college that time, not by a majority of Americans.

They went in and that's all that matters. It was a crime every bit as bad as this one but on even shakier grounds. How many outside of Putins cabal do you think wanted war? Does it make the act itself any less illiegal? No,

Don't blame NATO for the stupidity.

They are far from stupid, they know exactly what they are doing and that's why they bear a huge responsibility for the situation in Ukraine today

The main reason that Ukraine looked to NATO instead of Russia is that Russia was run by an authoritarian regime and Ukraine was trying to become something better. If Russia had aspired to something better, it would have inspired people to want to partner with Russia. No one likes dictators unless they have an SM complex.

So how come Eastern/Southern Ukrainians rebelled after the 2014 coup and the dictates from the gang in Kiev ? Why did so many Ukrainians want to side with Russia? You know, the Ukrainians we have now all but forgotten about.

The Ukraine has been caught in this West/Russian throwback from the Cold War and will pay a huge and tragic price for it. Just like those Iraqis the US president asked to overthrow SH in 1991 they have been left out to dry and I fear for their future. They may well end up the first Europeans since the second world war to live in countries that are usually and arrogantly ( not to forget racist too ) imo assifned to people of colour like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia etc etc

 

[Fledermaus]

The same right Kennedy had for saying no to the missiles in Cuba that were a response to US missiles in Turkey, they pose a significant threat to their nations.

That Iraq shouldn't be allowed WMDs?

What right has the USA or anyone else to say that Iran cannot be allowed a nuclear deterrent?

Or that the Palestinians can't have a state of their own?

The list goes on and on.

Iraq had WMDs until it used them on Iran and later their own people.

Iran was a signatory to the deproliferation treaty..

Palestinians have a state. Did the US say they can't?

 

[oneworld2]

Iraq had WMDs until it used them on Iran and later their own people.

Iran was a signatory to the deproliferation treaty..

Palestinians have a state. Did the US say they can't?

There are others in the ME that also have WMDs, why are they allowed them?

That's the nonproliferation treaty and you can always come out of treaties you have one time agreed to. You only need to look at the ICJ and who has decided that it's not for them

The USA has , through it's UNSC veto, prevented the creation of a defacto Palestinian state for around 40 years against an enormous world consensus.

I can give many other examples of how the powerful does what they want and the weak suffer what they may but I won't because you only have to look at the world to see that this is true, I'm not advocating it, just saying that this is the reality............. international relations are not really right based.

Would the US gov/people accept Russian or Chinese missile bases in Mexico. No. But do the Mexicans have a right to choose their own path? Yes, would that be allowed NO because the powerful do what they want

 

[Fledermaus]

There are others in the ME that also have WMDs, why are they allowed them?

Whataboutism...

And, did they sign the non proliferation treaty?

That's the nonproliferation treaty and you can always come out of treaties you have one time agreed to. You only need to look at the ICJ and who has decided that it's not for them

So treaties don't matter. Got it.

The USA has , through it's UNSC veto, prevented the creation of a defacto Palestinian state for around 40 years against an enormous world consensus.

Palestine has a state. They cant run it for shit. But they have one.

I can give many other examples of how the powerful does what they want and the weak suffer what they may but I won't because you only have to look at the world to see that this is true, I'm not advocating it, just saying that this is the reality............. international relations are not really right based.

That would be whataboutism.

Would the US gov/people accept Russian or Chinese missile bases in Mexico. No. But do the Mexicans have a right to choose their own path? Yes, would that be allowed NO because the powerful do what they want

Whataboutism.

 

[oneworld2]

Whataboutism...

And, did they sign the non proliferation treaty?



So treaties don't matter. Got it.



Palestine has a state. They cant run it for shit. But they have one.



That would be whataboutism.



Whataboutism.

Whataboutism is only objectionable to people who wish to either hold or present to others, biased views.

Thx for confirming it once again

 

[Fledermaus]

Whataboutism is only objectionable to people who wish to either hold or present to others, biased views.

Thx for confirming it once again

Whataboutism is a tool to divert/derail from the point.

Thx for confirming it once again

 

[choiceone]

Oh please.

So if it came out that the seperatists in Donbas had " invited" the Russian army to stay in Ukraine and occupy it for 20 years, install a puppet regime in Kiev, you would be supportive of that, right?

I didn't like anyone going into Afghanistan for the long haul, because I'm an Asia specialist. If anyone had asked me in 1971 what I had learned in a year-long course on the history of Asia, West, North, South, and East and Pacific, I would have said, "Stay away from Central Asia and the Mid-East. Do not depend on any trade with it. Engage in as little dialogue as possible. Stay away."

If I'd been Ukraine, long before Russia eyed those eastern provinces, I would have made a deal to move Ukrainians out of them and offered them to Russia.

The Taliban offered to hand over OBL if evidence were to be provided that he was responsible for the attacks, that offer was rejected out of hand, against international law btw, and the invasion went ahead. If you believe that a 20 years war and occupation, the installation of a puppet government on people that had FA to do with 9/11, was a proportionate response to those attacks I'm afraid you must be lost to your own propaganda

As per above, I would have stayed away. Reagan was enough of a mistake.

They went in and that's all that matters. It was a crime every bit as bad as this one but on even shakier grounds. How many outside of Putins cabal do you think wanted war? Does it make the act itself any less illiegal? No,

Never said it wasn't illegal. Total idiocy.

They are far from stupid, they know exactly what they are doing and that's why they bear a huge responsibility for the situation in Ukraine today

I'm not saying they don't bear a responsibility. Shouldn't ever have been naive about Putin.

So how come Eastern/Southern Ukrainians rebelled after the 2014 coup and the dictates from the gang in Kiev ? Why did so many Ukrainians want to side with Russia? You know, the Ukrainians we have now all but forgotten about.

Zelensky wasn't president after the 2014 coup. Kyiv was run under Putin's pick.

The Ukraine has been caught in this West/Russian throwback from the Cold War and will pay a huge and tragic price for it. Just like those Iraqis the US president asked to overthrow SH in 1991 they have been left out to dry and I fear for their future. They may well end up the first Europeans since the second world war to live in countries that are usually and arrogantly ( not to forget racist too ) imo assifned to people of colour like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia etc etc

I actually don't think racism has much to do with this - the eastern Ukrainian provinces notwithstanding, and the notion that it has to do with Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria is insane.

 

[oneworld2]

I didn't like anyone going into Afghanistan for the long haul, because I'm an Asia specialist. If anyone had asked me in 1971 what I had learned in a year-long course on the history of Asia, West, North, South, and East and Pacific, I would have said, "Stay away from Central Asia and the Mid-East. Do not depend on any trade with it. Engage in as little dialogue as possible. Stay away."

If I'd been Ukraine, long before Russia eyed those eastern provinces, I would have made a deal to move Ukrainians out of them and offered them to Russia.

As per above, I would have stayed away. Reagan was enough of a mistake.

Never said it wasn't illegal. Total idiocy.

I'm not saying they don't bear a responsibility. Shouldn't ever have been naive about Putin.

Zelensky wasn't president after the 2014 coup. Kyiv was run under Putin's pick.

I actually don't think racism has much to do with this - the eastern Ukrainian provinces notwithstanding, and the notion that it has to do with Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria is insane.

You never answered the question............. So if it came out that the seperatists in Donbas had " invited" the Russian army to stay in Ukraine and occupy it for 20 years, install a puppet regime in Kiev, you would be supportive of that, right?

And you think Russia would have just accepted those Ukrainian Russians back do you? On what grounds?

Do you think the US invasion of Afghanistan was illegal? If not , why not?

Do you think the US led invasion of Iraq was illegal?

No, the post 2014 coup government was picked by the USA.

If you haven't noticed how racist the world sytem is, you haven't been looking closely enough imo Apart from a special tribunal for the former Yugoslavia conflict how many white people has the Hague indicted/prosecuted?

 

[oneworld2]

Whataboutism is a tool to divert/derail from the point.

Thx for confirming it once again

It is the tool that shows the hypocrisy of the people making the point.