benchmark said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

While condemning Vladimir Putin's "criminal invasion and occupation," the letter, which notes the serial invasions of Russia by foreign adversaries, encourages readers to understand the war "through Russia's eyes."

---

Well, in Japan's eyes, attacking Pearl Harbor was necessary because we were an existential threat to their pursuit of asian economic resources due to our unjust trade embargo. Maybe we should have been more empathetic after Dec 7th?

---

Don't give them any ideas. Half the russian apologists will probably push for a Hiroshima apology with enough arm twisting. Remember, America is the big bad meanie responsible for everything in their eyes. Like rightwing Michelle Obamas.

Seymour Hersh: Poland and Baltic Countries Secretly Urging Zelensky to End War With Russia - Biden Is Receiving Incomplete Information on the Conflict in the Ukraine | The Gateway Pundit | by Paul Serran https://t.co/djiPpD9Z16

— JKash the SuperHero Orange MAGA Queen🍊 (@JKash000) May 17, 2023

Seymour Hersh has a new piece out at his substack:

Quote:

---

Zelensky's desire to take the war to Russia may not be clear to the president and senior foreign policy aides in the White House, but it is to those in the American intelligence community who have found it difficult to get their intelligence and their assessments a hearing in the Oval Office. Meanwhile, the slaughter in the city of Bakhmut continues. It is similar in idiocy, if not in numbers, to the slaughter in Verdun and the Somme during World War I. The men in charge of today's warin Moscow, Kiev, and Washingtonhave shown no interest even in temporary ceasefire talks that could serve as a prelude to something permanent. The talk now is only about the possibilities of a late spring or summer offensive by either party.

But something else is cooking, as some in the American intelligence community know and have reported in secret, at the instigation of government officials at various levels in Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, the Czech Republic, and Latvia. These countries are all allies of Ukraine and declared enemies of Vladimir Putin.

This group is led by Poland, whose leadership no longer fears the Russian army because its performance in Ukraine has left the glow of its success at Stalingrad during the Second World War in tatters. It has been quietly urging Zelensky to find a way to end the wareven by resigning himself, if necessaryand to allow the process of rebuilding his nation to get under way. Zelensky is not budging, according to intercepts and other data known inside the Central Intelligence Agency, but he is beginning to lose the private support of his neighbors.

---

Interesting, if true. I have read that the 'able bodied' population of Ukraine is now 30 percent lower than when the war started (again note they faced essentially impossible demographics before the war).

I thought the Russians would try to draw in more Ukrainians to what is left of Bakhmut, but I guess not, as the latter have been retreating/evacuating this week.

Quote:

---

The battle for Bakhmut is Zelensky's battle, because he demanded that his army stay there and fight even after his commanders told him it was too costly and not worth taking needless losses. The battle has raged for eight or nine months and, to a degree, has caused big losses on both sides. Recently his top commanders have put out statements that the fight was worth it. It is likely Zelensky demanded these statements of support.

The big question is: What is next? The Russians could use their forces to move toward Chasiv Yar and push the Ukrainian army back toward the Dnieper river. The Dnieper is absolutely strategic for Ukraine. If the Russians can reach its banks, Ukraine will be cut in half.

The Ukrainians have to be careful in mounting their planned but not yet executed great offensive because, if they leave their back door open, the Russians have sufficient forces to handle an offensive and to move on toward Chasiv Yar and beyond. There is a danger the Ukrainian army could be trapped from the north and the south and be unable to gain a breakthrough that could justify trying an offensive aimed at the Kherson region or the Zaporizhzhia region or even Crimea.

The US and NATO response is to stuff Ukraine with tons of modern weapons, some of which the Russians are blowing up before they ever get near a battlefield. But manpower remains Ukraine's Achilles heel. It is becoming more and more difficult for Ukraine to recruit soldiers or dragoon young men into service. This will only multiply when the full impact of the Bakhmut defeat is known to the Ukrainian public.

The Ukrainian army leadership also is in doubt. Its top leader, General Valery Zaluzhny, seemingly has disappeared. And so, too, has General Aleksandr Syrskyi, commander of the Ukrainian ground forces. There are no answers but plenty of rumors.

One rumor is that Zelensky went on his European tour while the military opposition was eliminated. Another is that these two generals were involved in corruption and were caught. A third rumor is that both were killed in a missile strike.

If the planned offensive is delayed because the army's leaders have been killed, for whatever reason, then Zelensky will face overwhelming problems.

---

I think the Zelensky tin cup-eurovision propaganda tour has gone on for 12 days. Curious if/when he returns to Kiev.

https://www.reuters.com/world/south-korea-signs-130-mln-aid-package-with-ukrainian-minister-2023-05-17/

Zelensky's wife secures another $130 million in (non-lethal) aid.

On the heels of securing nearly 3 billion in German lethal aid, Zelensky secures more from France.

https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-zelenskyy-france-macron-russia-f88abdcc52a92480454b3fe4b40fa75d



True power couple. The husband is stacking Russian corpses and the wife is taking care of the people.

Another big Ukrainian ammo depot struck:

Quote:

---

Russia's defence ministry said on Wednesday its forces were continuing to fight to capture western parts of the town of Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.

It also said its forces had hit a large ammunition depot in the Ukrainian city of Mykolayiv overnight.

---

But I've been told the Ukrainians are perfect humanitarians and it's only the Russians doing mean and nasty things!

— Samuel Ashwood (@AshwoodSamuel) May 16, 2023

European leaders begin to lose confidence in Zelenskyy as Poland quietly pushes for his resignation, according to new report. https://t.co/0KSEZcPR7r

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) May 17, 2023

oh no said:

---

European leaders begin to lose confidence in Zelenskyy as Poland quietly pushes for his resignation, according to new report. https://t.co/0KSEZcPR7r

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) May 17, 2023

---

Losing faith after securing additional billions in aid this week. lol okay

Quote:

---

4h ago02.10 EDT

The FT today has a piece by Felicia Schwartz in Washington and Henry Foy in Tokyo casting forward to later in the year, and raising the spectre that European allies worry about the longevity of US support for Ukraine. They write:

Quote:

---

Washington has been Ukraine's dominant source of weaponry and US officials say sufficient preapproved funds remain to sustain Kyiv for about five more months, covering a crucial counter-offensive planned for the coming weeks.

But European allies are increasingly uncertain about whether the US will come close to matching its existing $48bn package, adopted in 2022, particularly as it requires a vote in Congress this autumn against the backdrop of more partisan debate on the war.

With polling showing US support for Ukraine waning, some European allies say the Biden administration is under pressure to show that tens of billions of dollars in assistance have made a significant impact on the battlefield.

Some of the officials pointed to the UN general assembly and G20 leaders' summit taking place consecutively in early September as two crucial diplomatic events where both sides would come under large pressure to come to the table.

"If we get to September and Ukraine has not made significant gains, then the international pressure on [the west] to bring them to negotiations will be enormous," said one of the officials on condition of anonymity. "The same is true for Russia if the counter-offensive leaves them routed."

---

Yesterday Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, posited that the war might come to an end with the US abandoning its allies, citing the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the abandonment of the authorities "on whom they had relied throughout the 20-year occupation of that country".

Lavrov said: "Many political analysts have been writing about this. They predict that this entire crisis will continue for as long as the Americans need it to. These people [the government in Kyiv] will remain in power for as long as the US needs them there."

---

So, apparently after the stupidity of dumping a battery of missiles into the air, DoD advisors banned the Ukrainians from using Patriot systems any further until remedial training can be performed. So, the Russians launched their biggest drone attacks yet on Kiev (the Ukrainians have gone through almost all of their S300 systems).

Quote:

---

From late evening until early morning new strikes were inflicted on ammunition depots and places of concentration of manpower of the AFU, including Kiev where Patriot no longer helps. At least 4 warehouses in Odessa and oblast took off into the air, also one barrack for 450 people of terdefence. The missiles went first under the guise of decoys, and the air defense let them all fly. Two strikes hit the warehouses in the port, then 120 Shaheds attacked the artillery depots with shells that just arrived from Turkey. Thanks to Erdogan for the radio beacons inside the 155mm shells.

---

PRO-TIP🇺🇦; Don’t sanction EU banks while asking the EU to send you hundreds of millions worth of desperately needed weapons. Hungary Blocks €500 Million In EU Weapons Funding For Ukraine After Kiev Sanctions Hungary's Biggest Bank https://t.co/TknJXgjbMd pic.twitter.com/Q5Fd233KwO

— @amuse (@amuse) May 18, 2023

US gave Ukraine five months🫣🤔

According to Western officials, the support of the allies will be enough for this period, which gives Kyiv a last chance in the conflict, the Financial Times writes.
Support for Kyiv may end due to US elections. In five months, the West will not… pic.twitter.com/ueehfDrVMN

— Spriter (@Spriter99880) May 18, 2023

Clown show.

🚨ALERT🚨

6 residents arrested for recording and disseminating the air raid on Kyiv. Local webcams shut down.

Ukraine claims the citizens gave away positions on AFU air defense systems.

In reality, the videos are ruining Ukraine’s propaganda campaign.https://t.co/O7fsttI1rt

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 18, 2023

🇺🇦European tour of menagerie of the Zelensky
The Ambassador of Ukraine to France is already offended by this video and asks for an apology😂😂😂😂😂https://t.co/lfqXbQoqGB pic.twitter.com/bSjwuqaEQb

— Sinnaig (@Sinnaig) May 17, 2023

Good piece in Harper's June edition questioning why we are engaged in this proxy war/the narrative around it:

Quote:

---

From Murmansk in the Arctic to Varna on the Black Sea, the armed camps of NATO and the Russian Federation menace each other across a new Iron Curtain. Unlike the long twilight struggle that characterized the Cold War, the current confrontation is running decidedly hot. As former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and former secretary of defense Robert Gates acknowledge approvingly, the United States is fighting a proxy war with Russia. Thanks to Washington's efforts to arm and train the Ukrainian military and to integrate it into NATO systems, we are now witnessing the most intense and sustained military entanglement in the near-eighty-year history of global competition between the United States and Russia. Washington's rocket launchers, missile systems, and drones are destroying Russia's forces in the field; indirectly and otherwise, Washington and NATO are probably responsible for the preponderance of Russian casualties in Ukraine.

The United States has reportedly provided real-time battlefield intelligence to Kyiv, enabling Ukraine to sink a Russian cruiser, fire on soldiers in their barracks, and kill as many as a dozen of Moscow's generals. The United States may have already committed covert acts of war against Russia, but even if the report that blames the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines on a U.S. naval operation authorized by the Biden Administration is mistaken, Washington is edging close to direct conflict with Moscow. Assuredly, the nuclear forces of the United States and Russia, ever at the ready, are at a heightened state of vigilance. Save for the Cuban Missile Crisis, the risks of a swift and catastrophic escalation in the nuclear face-off between these superpowers is greater than at any point in history.

To most American policymakers, politicians, and punditsliberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicansthe reasons for this perilous situation are clear. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, an aging and bloodthirsty authoritarian, launched an unprovoked attack on a fragile democracy. To the extent that we can ascribe coherent motives for this action, they lie in Putin's paranoid psychology, his misguided attempt to raise his domestic political standing, and his refusal to accept that Russia lost the Cold War.

Putin is frequently described as mercurial, deluded, and irrationalsomeone who cannot be bargained with on the basis of national or political self-interest. Although the Russian leader speaks often of the security threat posed by potential NATO expansion, this is little more than a fig leaf for his naked and unaccountable will to power. To try to negotiate with Putin on Ukraine would therefore be an error on the order of attempts to "appease" Hitler at Munich, especially since, to quote President Biden, the invasion came after "every good-faith effort" by America and its allies to engage Putin in dialogue.

This conventional story is, in our view, both simplistic and self-serving. It fails to account for the well-documentedand perfectly comprehensibleobjections that Russians have expressed toward NATO expansion over the past three decades, and obscures the central responsibility that the architects of U.S. foreign policy bear for the impasse. Both the global role that Washington has assigned itself generally, and America's specific policies toward NATO and Russia, have led inexorably to waras many foreign policy critics, ourselves among them, have long warned that they would.

---

Very long piece, this is the conclusion:

Quote:

---

Of course, whatever strategy Europeans work out regarding Moscow would and should be a matter entirely for Europeans to determine. Unavoidably, the pursuit of a new European security systemand the embrace of the old diplomacy that it would embodywould mean a substantially diminished global role for Washington. In allowing a Concert of Europe to act truly independently, Washington would effectively renounce the pursuit of global hegemony and the belief that its foreign policy should be guided by the conviction that, to quote President Clinton, it has a "particular contribution to make in the march of human progress." In other words, the United States would accept that it would be what President Clinton promised it would not become, "simply . . . another great power." Every postCold War president has recoiled from this role.

But a more restrained and even pedestrian self-image might allow the United States at long last to pursue a more tolerant relationship with a recalcitrant world. "A mature great power will make measured and limited use of its power," wrote the journalist and foreign policy critic Walter Lippmann in April 1965, three months before the United States committed itself to a ground war in Vietnam.

Quote:

---

It will eschew the theory of a global and universal duty, which not only commits it to unending wars of intervention, but intoxicates its thinking with the illusion that it is a crusader for righteousness.

---

The policies that Washington has pursued toward Moscow and Kyiv, often under the banner of righteousness and duty, have created conditions that make the risk of nuclear war between the United States and Russia greater than it has ever been. Far from making the world safer by setting it in order, we have made it all the more dangerous.

---

It's refreshing to see some press questioning the narrative.

Zelensky is traveling (apparently on a US military jet) to Japan for the G7, presumably because that is where he plans to beg for more money, sanctions etc. Sad.

People advocating to just do nothing and let Russia take Ukraine have no facts to guarantee that approach would have been safer/better in the long term for Europe and us than what is presently going on.

So…it comes down to politics.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

People advocating to just do nothing and let Russia take Ukraine have no facts to guarantee that approach would have been safer/better in the long term for Europe and us than what is presently going on.

So…it comes down to politics.

---

Not sure who "people" are retroactively advocating what you state, absent facts, but yes this is a politics board/forum, I believe.

nortex97 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

People advocating to just do nothing and let Russia take Ukraine have no facts to guarantee that approach would have been safer/better in the long term for Europe and us than what is presently going on.

So…it comes down to politics.

---

Not sure who "people" are retroactively advocating what you state, absent facts, but yes this is a politics board/forum, I believe.

---

Yep. A lot of us simply aren't convinced that Joe the Plumber is getting a good ROI out of a border war on the other side of the globe.

I think the 'lost in translation' problem for some is that the real context/history/arguments, like the Harpers article I posted earlier today, don't break down into nice 'my side is right and you are wrong' sound bytes for message board fodder.

I don't begrudge the side that doesn't want Putin to just gloriously succeed by any means. However, I also don't trust our CIA/State Dept/senile commander in chief who is pushing toward a possible nuclear confrontation/escalation (and long compromised in Ukraine/with China) while the war has disproportionately impacted global inflation/starvation/several hundred thousand deaths directly, either. Imagine how secure our border could be by now if we'd spent those funds here.

It's tough again to discuss that on a message forum respectfully when it is reduced to a 'well you just want the Russians to rape/kill/pillage and burn' retort. But, of course, many are not inclined/trained to think critically for themselves. C'est la vie.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

People advocating to just do nothing and let Russia take Ukraine have no facts to guarantee that approach would have been safer/better in the long term for Europe and us than what is presently going on.

So…it comes down to politics.

---

Not sure who "people" are retroactively advocating what you state, absent facts, but yes this is a politics board/forum, I believe.

---

Yep. A lot of us simply aren't convinced that Joe the Plumber is getting a good ROI out of a border war on the other side of the globe.

---

This thing is far more complex than who is in the WH right now in the U.S..

IMHO, the West IS partly to blame for this. After the fall of the Soviet Union up into the early 2000's there seemed to be a real opportunity for Russia to not 'join' but at least a real political shift of that country towards the West with stability and peace.

But the West kept pushing NATO expansion and Putin was an old guard KGB guy perfectly happy to feed his Cold War nostalgia.

Then 2014 Russia invasion of Crimea when this current Ukraine business really got started and now into this next phase of escalation.

Since Fall of USSR Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump to now Biden. And I will be shocked if this isn't still a major headache for whoever follows Biden.

Given the cat is long out of the bag at that point, in Feb 2022 when they went right for Kiev clearly showing intent to take the whole country, many of your NATO allies looking at you for leadership…cut off support? Just some toothless sanctions? Finland and Sweden asking now to join NATO cause they are freaked out and you say no? Because…Russia is saying 'give us what we want or will use nukes'?

It is a screwed up situation but personally I do think something is being gained here. NATO is now being further strengthened adding Finland and eventually Sweden, since expansion is already out of the bag for a long time now might as well own it and just carry it through.

And it is forcing Europe to wean itself more off Russian energy which will reduce Russia's influence in Europe down the road (such as with Germany).

Now…there is a fine line to walk here though. Russia gets the bloody nose and is taken down a few pegs but it is hard to see us actually allowing Ukraine to take back everything since 2014…particularly Crimea…because that is an existential crisis to Russia/Putin. So…you just let things play out…keep feeding the war machine for now since it isn't your troops dying and Ukraine is highly motivated to fight, but not TOO much support actually risking Ukraine taking back something like Crimea truly forcing Russia to make an existential decision. IMO still way too early to fold our hand here yet and start pushing for negotiations.

I am not a fan of Biden but I personally don't have an issue of how this Ukraine stuff has been handled thus far given the hand that was dealt. We have been trying to thread a fine needle here.

There's also a crazy American / currency bias. We see global borders as "correct" in their existent form… because that's where we're familiar with it being! They're sacrosanct because we like it this way … unless we don't in which case we make others bend borders to our whims. And governments deserve to rule within those borders until our CIA decides it's time for a coup in which case: that government was unfit!

…but that only applies to areas we care about. So we don't have to turn any attention toward Africa.


Honestly, I've grown to understand those who are frustrated with American foreign policy and see it as "might makes right so we'll do as we please." Our politicians leave things undefined and inconsistent on purpose, and it's frustrating as hell.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

People advocating to just do nothing and let Russia take Ukraine have no facts to guarantee that approach would have been safer/better in the long term for Europe and us than what is presently going on.

So…it comes down to politics.

---

Noone is advocating for doing nothing. Those advocating for peace talks acknowledge that the west shat the bed in regards to approaching Russian foreign policy correctly and that Ukraine did act poorly in the Donbas region.

The best thing to do is have peace talks, draw a line and either give Donbas complete autony or allow them to vote to join Russia...and let Russia know that any further acts of aggression will lead to a proportionate military response from Europe and the US on the whole- meaning boots on the ground and a formal pledge to not add Ukraine to NATO or put any US or European bases in it.

Ukraine effectively becomes a neutral buffer territory like the Rhine. Either country enters and it is considered an act of war by the other.

I agree with much of that - although I do think the war was avoidable even as Biden entered office, and I don't think we align on NATO's strength/role.

NATO existed to counter the USSR. In its fall, NATO should have been back-burnered. Instead, western "leaders" enjoyed having a cooperative club and kept inviting new buddies. Poking your adversary's buttons by adding minor powers isn't strength; it's the reckless hubris of trust-fund-kids.

Agree largely with you and the last few posters.

Would just add that if "we" had lost 100K-250K it would also further harden resolve about negotiating away anything. There is no 'winning' in wars.

Seeing lots of reports on Twitter claiming Bakhmut is completely captured and in Russian hands, including from Prigozhin himself.

Quote:

---

NATO existed to counter the USSR. In its fall, NATO should have been back-burnered. Instead, western "leaders" enjoyed having a cooperative club and kept inviting new buddies. Poking your adversary's buttons by adding minor powers isn't strength; it's the reckless hubris of trust-fund-kids.

---

By the time of the fall of the USSR, Europe really didn't have much choise but to keep NATO going since they no longer had militaries of their own nor could they afford to rebuild them.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

NATO existed to counter the USSR. In its fall, NATO should have been back-burnered. Instead, western "leaders" enjoyed having a cooperative club and kept inviting new buddies. Poking your adversary's buttons by adding minor powers isn't strength; it's the reckless hubris of trust-fund-kids.

---

By the time of the fall of the USSR, Europe really didn't have much choise but to keep NATO going since they no longer had militaries of their own nor could they afford to rebuild them.

---

What they 'could afford' is perhaps contextualized by what they have spent on 'global warming' in the past 10 years, net. They chose not to spend on their own defense, which I respect, but I think it's either wrong or cowardice to say Europe in 1991 could not afford to defend itself long term from the threat Russia might/could pose.

The warmongers are trying to drag us into WW3, which can only end in one way: nuclear annihilation and the suffering and death of all our loved ones. Zelensky, Biden, NATO, congressional and media neocons are insane. And we are insane if we passively allow them to lead us into… pic.twitter.com/aUEdPFAzoy

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) May 21, 2023

She's right.

Russia will end up with at least part of Donbas, which probably could have been negotiated from the outset without a bunch of poor people dying on both sides. But powerful folks wouldn't have been able to enrich themselves without some actual war

Old Tom Morris said:

---

Russia will end up with at least part of Donbas, which probably could have been negotiated from the outset without a bunch of poor people dying on both sides. But powerful folks wouldn't have been able to enrich themselves without some actual war

---

Sure...why would Ukraine want to keep it when Russia wanted it moar!

Hell, Mexico would like the RGV...maybe we should start negotiations so we can hand it over nicely?

I have a better idea - give Mexico the City of Austin.

She listed out the folks to blame for pushing us towards WW3 m…Biden! Zelensky! neocons!…but she makes no mention of Putin or the pro-war factions on the Russia side….as though this conflict is 100% the West's fault and Russia has nothing to do with the fighting going on.

Her take seems heavily biased to one side…

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

I have a better idea - give Mexico the City of Austin.

---

Can we get some Mexicans to load it up and move it?

What's another $375 million for the Zelensky pile. Monopoly money apparently. Oh wait, more stuff we will never use, right?

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

I have a better idea - give Mexico the City of Austin.

---

Give them all the big cities with the Fortune 500 companies in Texas. The joke will be on Mexico when the conservatives blockade the cities and starve them. [/every dream of divorce thread].

It's a little like the legs plotting to do away with the body, if the extremities were Patriots and the rest of the body a concerned torso

Ag with kids said:

---

Old Tom Morris said:

---

Russia will end up with at least part of Donbas, which probably could have been negotiated from the outset without a bunch of poor people dying on both sides. But powerful folks wouldn't have been able to enrich themselves without some actual war

---

Sure...why would Ukraine want to keep it when Russia wanted it moar!

---

Actually if you look at how Ukraine treated the Region post 2014 they probably would have willingly given it up, considering the fact that they were persecuting the residents, suspending trials there, and the region was openly rebellious and wanting to secede anyway.

If they could have negotiated a deal to rid themselves of it and get security assurances they would have jumped at it.

And zelensky did until he got a visit from the british prime minister offering to line his pockets and feed Ukraine with weapons if they refused to negotiate.

But go on and tell me more about how you know nothing about the real reasons behind the conflict.

Hungary blocks EU aid to Zelensky after his plot to blow up a pipeline to Hungary was leaked last week.

Quote:

---

Hungary has announced that it will block an EU military aid package for Ukraine, labelling the country as "hostile" after an alleged plan to blow up an oil pipeline leaked in the Western press.

Hungarian government officials have expressed their fury at Ukraine in recent days, decrying the country as being "hostile" after the country's alleged plans to blow up an oil pipeline leaked in the Washington Post last week.

As detailed by the leaks, Zelensky has reportedly been considering an attack on Russia's Druzhba pipeline that supplies oil to Hungary in what would appear to be an attempt to sabotage the country.

Kyiv has also blacklisted Hungarian bank OTP, listing the firm as a sponsor of Russia's invasion, causing further anger in Budapest.

According to a report by the Associated Press, senior officials in the Hungarian government say that they are blocking EU attempts to send more weapons and ammo to Ukraine in retaliation for the blacklisting.

"We cannot support the allocation of another half a billion euros from the European Peace Facility for arms transfers to Ukraine, and we will not give it the green light as long as OTP is on this particular list," the country's Foreign Minister, Peter Szijjarto, remarked, decrying the singling out of OTP as "scandalous and unacceptable".

He also denounced Zelensky's alleged plans to blow up the Druzhba pipeline, sayingoverall that there was evidence that "Ukraine is behaving more and more hostile towards Hungary".

---

A balanced analysis of Sino-Russian relationships over the past few decades here (last month.). Here's a good analysis as well as to how/why we should decrease our presence in Europe. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

This is a common refrain among those who believe that any meaningful U.S. military drawdown from Europemost likely involving other states stepping up to shoulder the lion's share of the defense burdenwould sever U.S. ties with the continent and even the world. Pulling back, they argue, is prohibitively risky, would save little money, and could destroy broader cooperation between the United States and Europe.

This concern is overblown. It rests on excessive optimism about the United States' ability to deter both China and Russia indefinitely and on unwarranted pessimism about the trajectory of a more capable Europe. In reality, countries on both sides of the Atlantic would benefit from transferring most of the responsibility for defending Europe to Europeans themselves, allowing the United States to shift to a supporting role. The result is more likely to be a balanced and sustainable transatlantic partnership than a transatlantic divorce. The alternative, meanwhile, is to stick with a deteriorating status quo that suppresses Europe's defense capabilities and asks ever more of Washington.

---

Quote:

---

Orchestrating the defense of Europe is costly for the United States, and not just in dollars and cents.

Acting as Europe's protector fuels U.S. hubris and allows Washington to discount the often valuable advice of its friends. When western European governments spoke out against the war in Iraq in 2003, they were ignored even though they were right. If Europe had greater strategic autonomy, Washington would be less prone to engage in the fantasy that the United States alone can shape the world as it wants. U.S. dominance also infantilizes European states by treating them as incapable of providing security for their own citizens and reducing their agency in foreign policy. And it is increasingly risky, as a darkening strategic picture creates the prospect of a sudden withdrawal of U.S. forces under dire circumstances.

Better, then, to empower European allies to begin to fill future gaps in U.S. capacity. The original goal of U.S. policymakers in the decade after World War II was to help Europeans get back on their feet and defend themselves. Yet rather than recognize that these countries are now capable of doing so, some officials in Washington ironically seem to fear this real success, grasping for a reason to make the U.S. presence in Europe permanent and extend U.S. defense commitments further.

For all the criticism he received, Macron is asking the right questions. In the coming decades, what kind of relationship should the United States and Europe seek? Should it be a true partnership that adapts to changing circumstances? Or should it be a lopsided dependency that maintains the entrenched dominance of the United States, leaving European states less as allies and more, as Macron suggested, as vassals? Asking Europe to step up may seem risky, but it is in fact the safer choice.

This transition will not be easy. Building a workable European defense will require deft political maneuvering, nurturing of Europe's defense industrial base, and an all-around change in strategic culture. It will take time if it is done right. But the result will vindicate the effort. Contrary to what Mazarr and other critics claim, the alliance will become more robust, secure, and sustainable, in keeping with what its postwar creators envisioned. Far from signaling a retreat from international affairs, the United States will demonstrate that it is not an out-of-touch, declining hegemon clinging to its prior preeminence but instead a global leader, seeking to work with capable partners to build a safe and resilient world.

---

Let the euro's deal with Ukraine and Russia long term. If the Germans like Merkel decide to marry up to Russian energy again etc., fine, their problem, not ours.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Actually if you look at how Ukraine treated the Region post 2014 they probably would have willingly given it up, considering the fact that they were persecuting the residents, suspending trials there, and the region was openly rebellious and wanting to secede anyway.

If they could have negotiated a deal to rid themselves of it and get security assurances they would have jumped at it.

---

That's it. Russia invaded Crimea and Donbass to save persecuted Russian minorities ... and then invaded Ukraine to save them from the Nazi's. Ditto Russia's goodwill in Transnistria and Georgia. Even worse, blatant Russophobia in the Baltics is becoming worrisome ... discrimination against ethnic Russian minorities has become rampant recently. The Baltics may need to be saved also.

Old Tom Morris said:

---

Russia will end up with at least part of Donbas, which probably could have been negotiated from the outset without a bunch of poor people dying on both sides. But powerful folks wouldn't have been able to enrich themselves without some actual war

---

From the outset Putin wanted all of Ukraine and thought he'd be rolling tanks into Kiev in a matter of days. There's zero chance he would have negotiated just the Donbas at the outset

The impact of Bakhmut, lest everyone pretend it doesn't matter now that it has finally fallen.

Quote:

---

1) Regional transport & logistics hub: Bakhmut gives Russia access to key roads and rail. It places larger cities of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk within easy range of Russian artillery. Hence Zelensky's earlier comment that the loss of Bakhmut would give the Russians an "open road" to rest of Donetsk.

2) Unique defensive fortifications: Bakhmut's network of subterranean salt mines and tunnels (100+ miles) contributed to its defensibility. It also provides an underground complex to stockpile weapons, munitions and equipment. Ukraine has other lines of defense but Bakhmut may have been unique.

3) "Fortress Bakhmut": Bakhmut became a rallying cry for Ukrainian resistance. Zelensky called it "the fortress of our morale" and gave a Bakhmut flag to the US Congress. "The fight for Bakhmut will change the trajectory of our war for independence and for freedom," he said.

4) "Operation Meat Grinder": Russia may have used Bakhmut as a trap to lure in Ukrainian troops and generals, causing them massive casualties and imperiling the Ukrainian counteroffensive. Prigozhin videos claiming the Russians were running out of ammo (which were eagerly reported by MSM) may have been part of the trap.

---

https://t.co/LTpj8ta20W

— @amuse (@amuse) May 21, 2023

So, either Zelensky was lying about how critical it was, or not. What a waste of humanity, in any case.

As per the Chinese and Blackrock meetings, Zelensky is also now calling for a peace summit in July. It will be interesting if he decides to launch the mythological 'spring offensive' in the interim, as the lives will ultimately be for nothing given the price negotiations have already arrived at a conclusion.

It may be the case as well, that with the roads from Bakhmut now open, and significant ammo depots having been destroyed in the past few weeks, the Ukrainians realize it is best to just accept reality vs. pretend they can go re-take the Crimea. Zaluzhny was apparently very seriously injured in a strike recently, no idea what the actual command structure of Ukrainian forces is right now.

#BreakingNews #Ukraine "In a short time, already in July, the full-scale war will enter the 500 days. And that is a symbolic period of time, a good month to convene the Summit of the Peace Formula, the summit of the global majority." - Zelensky

— The Balkan Independent (@BalkanInd) May 21, 2023

Quote:

---

mythological 'spring offensive'

---