Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 21 January, 2024

This thread is about disceting the Sunday shows and other topics of interest. If you can’t do that you wont last long. And from the looks of it your are too stupid to do that anyway. So as I told you before don’t post to me anymore.
Maybe you can understand that.

Slovak Prime Minister Fico said that Ukraine has been under US control since 2014, so the Russian Federation was forced to use military force.

“Imagine Mexico, which is next to you, imagine that the Mexican Ministry of Defense will become completely under the control of Russia. That the entire political scene, including the president, the government, is under the control of Russia. Now imagine that Mexico is included in a military organization where Russia plays dominant role. What would you do? This argument is rational. Ukraine is not a sovereign and independent country. Ukraine is under the complete control of the United States,” he noted.

https://x.com/djuric_zlatko/status/1749122685064315054?s=61&t=BspBEkX2hzhEXXxbQreKxg

Haley is very unpopular in SC. Trump should destroy her. Now that DeSantis is out and endorsing Trump, Haley will be gone by SC at the latest.

EVs heavier and older city parking garages collapsing...

Related ???

Pick up owners in winter intentionally load heavy to get around in the snow.

And tires wearing out quickly on EV's.

And we have not gotten many stories (YET) about land fills filled with EV battery packs that are not recycled for whatever reason. Maybe the batteries can be buried next to the 100'+ long windmill blades that nobody has any use for.

The story is just starting.

Argument fails completely just by using the example of Cuba. Cuba been a Russian client state 90 miles from the US for over 60 years

Under International Law if Mexico became a Russian satellite the US would have no right to do anything about it.

Same rules apply to Russia.

Argument fails completely just by using the example of Cuba. Cuba been a Russian client state 90 miles from the US for over 60 years

We did have the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest we have come to a kinetic war with the Soviet Union/Russia. Amb Jack Matlock, a career diplomat and the last US Ambassador to the Soviet Union, commented as follows:

"When I hear comments now such as, “Russia has no right to claim a ‘sphere of influence,’” I am puzzled. It is not a question of legal “rights,” but of probable consequences. It is as if someone announces, “We never passed a law of gravity so we can ignore it.” No one is saying that Ukraine does not have a “right” to apply for NATO membership. Of course it does. The question is whether the members of the alliance would serve their own interest if they agreed. In fact they would assume a very dangerous liability."

"I point this out as a veteran of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. At that time I was assigned to the American embassy in Moscow and it fell my lot to translate some of Khrushchev’s messages to President John Kennedy. Why is it relevant? Just this: in terms of international law, the Soviet Union had a “right” to place nuclear weapons on Cuba when the Cuban government requested them, the more so since the United States had deployed nuclear missiles of comparable range that could strike the USSR from Turkey. But it was an exceedingly dangerous move since the United States had total military dominance of the Caribbean and under no circumstances would tolerate the deployment of nuclear missiles in its backyard. Fortunately for both countries and the rest of the world, Kennedy and Khrushchev were able to defuse the situation. Only later did we learn how close we came to a nuclear exchange."

Under International Law if Mexico became a Russian satellite the US would have no right to do anything about it.

"One persistent U.S. demand is that Ukraine’s territorial integrity be restored. Indeed, the U.S. is party to the Budapest Memorandum in which Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in return for Ukraine’s transfer of Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia for destruction in accord with U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. What the U.S. demand ignores is that, under traditional international law, agreements remain valid rebus sic stantibus (things remaining the same). When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand. When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed."

"Furthermore, Russians would argue that the U.S. is interested in territorial integrity only when its interests are served. American governments have a record of ignoring it when convenient, as when it and its NATO allies violated Serbian territorial integrity by creating and then recognizing an independent Kosovo. Also, the United Sates violated the principle when it supported the separation of South Sudan from Sudan, Eritrea from Ethiopia, and East Timor from Indonesia."

"To the charge that Russia is guilty of unprovoked aggression in Ukraine, Russia would point out that the U.S. invaded Panama to arrest Noriega, invaded Grenada to prevent American citizens from being taken hostage (even though they had not been taken hostage), invaded and occupied Iraq on spurious grounds, maintains military forces in Syria without the permission of the Syrian government, targets people in other countries with drones. In other words, for the U.S. government to preach about respect for sovereignty and preservation of territorial integrity to a Russian president can seem a claim to special rights not allowed others."

George Kennan, IMO America's greatest diplomat of the 20th Century, writing in 1997 at age 92, declared that expanding NATO to the east “ would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

This war has been ongoing since 2014. The US/EU coup of the duly elected government of Ukraine engineered by Nuland spawned the separatist movement in the Donbas and led to the unopposed annexation of Crimea by Russia. In response, the US/EU (Obama-Biden Administration) did essentially nothing.

The second invasion of Ukraine could/should have been avoided. It is a failure of diplomacy and the incompetent fools and knaves that surround Biden.

Sorry but that a another bit of rationalization trying to justify a pre-determined political position.

The Soviet Union doesn’t exist. To claim, without any supporting documentation, that such an understanding was made is utterly irrelevant.

This claim is without any bearing in International Law. This is standard issue gaslighting. It an attempt to make excuses for Russian’s acts of aggression. It the same sort of nonsense a wife beater makes up to justify why he beats his wife.

There are all sort of diplomatic steps Russia could of taken to resolve the issue. They did none of them

Compare this to the long drawn out diplomatic efforts by the US before any military action in 1991 or 2002 in the ME.

One can argue that the US should leave the Ukraine issue to the EU to resolve. One can argue that the US should not be involved simply because there no vital US interest being protected here

Where the Libertarian/Conservative right failed consistently is they have some sort of weird need to try to manufacture moral justifications for Putin’s war.

There aren’t any.

Sorry but that a another bit of rationalization trying to justify a pre-determined political position.

Sorry, but facts matter. This war has been ongoing for nearly ten years. The failure by Ukraine to implement the Minsk Accords in 2015 brokered by France and Germany and signed by Russia and Ukraine led to the second invasion. Also, NATO and the US repeatedly stated since 2008 up to just weeks before the second Russian invasion that Ukraine would be a member of NATO. Since 2008 Putin has stated that Russia would never allow Ukraine to be a member of NATO. It was his red line.

Jack Matlock described how the 2014 Revolution set the stage for the separatist movement in the Donbas and the annexation of Crimea.

"The Ukrainian revolution of 2014 started with protests over President Yanukovich’s decision not to sign an agreement with the European Union. The United States and the EU openly supported the demonstrators and spoke of detaching Ukraine from what one might call the Russian (past Soviet) security sphere and attaching it to the West through EU and NATO membership. Never mind that Ukraine was unable at that time to meet the normal requirements for either EU or NATO membership. Violence started, first in the Ukrainian nationalist West, with irregular militias taking over the local offices headed by Yanukovich appointees."

"On February 20, 2014, demonstrations in Kyiv, which up to then had been largely peaceful, turned violent even though a compromise agreement had been reached to hold early elections. Many demonstrators were shot by sniper fire and President Yanukovich fled the country. Demonstration leaders claimed that the government’s security force, the Berkut, was responsible for initiating the shooting, but subsequent trials failed to substantiate this. In fact, most of the sniper fire came from buildings controlled by the demonstrators."

"The United States and most Western countries immediately recognized the successor government, but Russia and many Russian-speaking Ukrainians considered Yanukovich’s ouster the result of an illegal coup d’etat. A rebellion occurred in the Eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk and Russia supported the rebels with military equipment and irregular forces."

"In Crimea, local leaders declared independence and requested annexation by Russia. A referendum was conducted under the watchful eye of “little green men” infiltrated from Russia. There was no resistance by Ukrainian military or police forces, and Russia officially annexed the peninsula when the referendum resulted in an overwhelming pro-Russian vote. There was no fighting and no casualties in Crimea."

"In February 2015 an agreement was reached (“Minsk agreement”) to bring the Donbas back under Kiev’s control by allowing a degree of autonomy, including election of local officials, and amnesty for the secessionists. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian legislature (Verkhovna Rada) has refused to amend the constitution to provide for a federal system or to proclaim an amnesty for the secessionists."

"Separate sets of U.S. and EU economic sanctions against Russia have been declared in respect to the Crimea and the Donbas, but most have seemed to stimulate hostile emotions rather than encourage solution of the problems. What needs to be understood is that Russia perceives these issues as matters of vital national security."

"Russia is extremely sensitive about foreign military activity adjacent to its borders, as any other country would be and the United States always has been. It has signaled repeatedly that it will stop at nothing to prevent NATO membership for Ukraine. Nevertheless, eventual Ukrainian membership in NATO has been an avowed objective U.S. and NATO policy since the Bush-Cheney administration. This makes absolutely no sense. It is also dangerous to confront a nuclear-armed power with military threats on its border."

While Trump was still President on June 12, 2020 NATO issued a communique recognizing Ukraine as an Enhanced Opportunities Partner

"This status is part of NATO’s Partnership Interoperability Initiative, which aims to maintain and deepen cooperation between Allies and partners that have made significant contributions to NATO-led operations and missions."

As a NATO partner, Ukraine has provided troops to Allied operations, including in Afghanistan and Kosovo, as well as to the NATO Response Force and NATO exercises. Allies highly value these significant contributions, which demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to Euro-Atlantic security.

"As an Enhanced Opportunities Partner, Ukraine will benefit from tailor-made opportunities to help sustain such contributions. This includes enhanced access to interoperability programmes and exercises, and more sharing of information, including lessons learned."

"Ukraine is now one of six Enhanced Opportunities Partners, alongside Australia, Finland, Georgia, Jordan and Sweden. Each of the partners has a tailor-made relationship with NATO, based on areas of mutual interest."

On June 14, 2020 NATO issued a communique from its summit, Ukraine to become NATO member state with help of Membership Action Plan

Ukraine will become a NATO member with the Membership Action Plan as an integral part of the process, leaders of the Alliance have confirmed at their summit.

That's according to a communique by the leaders of state and government of 30 NATO Allies.

"We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process," the communique reads.

"We stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference. The Annual National Programmes under the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) remain the mechanism by which Ukraine takes forward the reforms pertaining to its aspiration for NATO membership. Ukraine should make full use of all instruments available under the NUC to reach its objective of implementing NATO principles and standards," NATO leaders stress."

Russia drew a red line that Ukraine would not become a member of NATO. So NATO doubled down in the lead up to the second invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

This was just waving a red flag in front of the Russian bull. And then as Russian troops were massing on Ukraine's border for months prior to the invasion, the Biden regime signed on November 10, 2021 U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership that included, among other things, the following:

"4. Emphasize unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, including Crimea and extending to its territorial waters in the face of ongoing Russian aggression, which threatens regional peace and stability and undermines the global rules-based order."

"Affirm the commitments made to strengthen the Ukraine-U.S. strategic partnership by Presidents Zelenskyy and Biden on September 1, 2021."

"Guided by the April 3, 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration of the NATO North Atlantic Council and as reaffirmed in the June 14, 2021 Brussels Summit Communique of the NATO North Atlantic Council, the United States supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO."

"The United States remains committed to assisting Ukraine with ongoing defense and security reforms and to continuing its robust training and exercises. The United States supports Ukraine’s efforts to maximize its status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner to promote interoperability."

The Biden/Blinken regime eschewed a diplomatic solution and went full bore ahead with provoking Russia to act. It was deliberate. A proxy war. Biden openly called for regime change in Russia and branded Putin as a war criminal. SecDef Austin said the objective was to weaken Russia militarily so it could never do this again. Lindsey Graham proclaimed that the nearly $200 billion sent to Ukraine as the "best money we've ever spent," after noting that "Russians are dying" during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

We are now in a new Cold War that has set in motion a global political realignment, which is not advantageous to the US and the West. Most countries are ignoring the sanctions against Russia, including a few members of NATO. The BRICS nations are expanding. The dollar as the world's reserve currency is under attack.

The Soviet Union doesn’t exist.

Pure sophistry. Russia is the internationally accepted current incarnation of the Soviet Union. Russia retains its permanent membership in the UN Security Council, including veto power. All of the Soviet Embassies around the globe are now Russian Embassies. As a matter of policy, the US considers treaty obligations made by the Soviet Union are transferred to Russia. Without getting too wonky, here is an excerpt from a paper on the subject:

The Treaty Obligations of the Successor States of the Former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia: Do They Continue in Force?

"The United States consistently asserts that the successor states emerging from the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia are obligated to fulfill the treaty obligations of their predecessor states. The United States bases this duty on the international law of state succession with respect to treaties and on political commitments made during the process of establishing diplomatic relations."

"The international law of state succession with respect to treaties, however, indicates that successor states are frequently entitled to a de novo review of the treaty commitments of the predecessor state, and they are not immediately obligated to assume all the treaties of the predecessor state. Similarly, the political assurances received from the individual successor states are incomplete, unilateral, and unlikely to be considered binding under international law. Finally, the Department of State's own compilation of Treaties in Force indicates that even the State Department might not consider all successor states bound by treaty obligations of the predecessor state. For instance, there are no listings of treaties in force with the states of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Serbia/Montenegro."

To claim, without any supporting documentation, that such an understanding was made is utterly irrelevant. This claim is without any bearing in International Law. This is standard issue gaslighting. It an attempt to make excuses for Russian’s acts of aggression. It the same sort of nonsense a wife beater makes up to justify why he beats his wife.

I don't know what claim you are referring to that requires documentation. The Budapest memorandum? The US assurances that NATO would not be expanded?

Certainly, I am not making "excuses" for Russia's acts of aggression. The point is to place this proxy war into context. The war did not start with Russia's invasion in February 2022. It could have been resolved through diplomacy, but our side led by Biden, Blinken, and Nuland wanted the confrontation.

Fredrich Kagan, Nuland's brother-in-law, wrote an article in Oct 2023, Weakness Is Lethal: Why Putin Invaded Ukraine and How the War Must End that summarizes the twists and turns of the events leading up to the second invasion. It is a must read that encapsulates the compromised Biden regime's policy towards the war. It offers some frightening insights into the mindset of the fools and knaves who are directing our involvement in the war.

There were plenty of opportunities to respond differently to Putin's many offers to settle the dispute diplomatically. Unintentionally, Kagan describes them. Clausewitz said "War is the continuation of policy with other means." IMO Biden, Blinken, Nuland, and Sullivan deemed this was an opportunity for payback for the humiliation they suffered in 2014 when Putin annexed Crimea and supported the separatist movement in the Donbas. It was personal, a matter of ego.

Kagan, the embodiment of the neocon view of the world, discounts Putin's red line of no NATO membership for Ukraine as just an excuse for his real objectives of breaking up NATO and taking complete control of Ukraine. He offers as the only solution to the war the following:

"There is no path to real peace other than helping Ukraine inflict an unequivocal military defeat on Russia and then helping to rebuild Ukraine into a military and society so strong and resilient that no future Russian leader sees an opportunity like the ones Putin misperceived in 2014 and 2022. This path is achievable if the West commits to supporting Ukraine in the prolonged effort likely needed to walk down it. If the West is instead lured by the illusion of some compromise, it may end the pain for now, but only at the cost of much greater pain later. Putin has shown that he views compromise as surrender, and surrender emboldens him to reattack. This war can only end not when Putin feels that he can save face, but rather when he knows that he cannot win."

Kagan denies the reality that Ukraine cannot "win" this war. With estimates of 500,000 Ukrainian deaths and 100,000 Russian deaths, support for the continuation of this war is eroding both in Europe and the US, not to mention in Ukraine. And where is the estimated one trillion dollars for rebuilding Ukraine going to come from? Before the war, Ukraine was considered one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Nothing has changed. Zelensky is just another crooked, undemocratic oligarch. His domestic support is crumbling as he has postponed elections and jailed clerics and journalists.

Compare this to the long drawn out diplomatic efforts by the US before any military action in 1991 or 2002 in the ME.

Diplomatic efforts to settle the situation in Ukraine were ongoing almost since Ukraine became an independent country. NATO expansion has always been the sticking point ever since the demise of the Soviet Union and the elimination of the Warsaw Pact. US/EU/NATO were actively involved in the Ukrainian revolution that overthrew the duly elected government of Ukraine, which spawned the separatist movement in the Donbas and the unopposed Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. There were many opportunities to solve this issue diplomatically. The Kagan article describes some of them. As late as January 12, 2022 there were efforts to end the crisis peacefully. NATO Rejects Russian Security Demands, But Says It's Open To More Diplomacy

Where the Libertarian/Conservative right failed consistently is they have some sort of weird need to try to manufacture moral justifications for Putin’s war. There aren’t any.

There you go again. I am not trying to justify Putin's actions, morally or otherwise. I am providing some context as to why there was a second Russian invasion. This proxy war was avoidable. The Biden Administration has failed to provide the public with the justification for our extenisve involvement and the end game. We can't afford these endless wars.

Biden is compromised. He took a $5 million bribe from Ukraine. Hunter held a spot on the Burisma Board for over 4 years at $83k a month. Why has Ukraine, one of the most corrupt countries in the world, become our hill to die on?

Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe with a per capita GDP of $10,700, 140th in the world and $200 less than Bhutan. We have sent close to $200 billion to Ukraine with no ability to audit where the money is being spent. We fund the entire government of Ukraine including pensions. All of this money has to be borrowed as the US is on track this calendar year to incur a $2 trillion budget deficit. Debt servicing costs are now $1 trillion a year on our $34 trillion national debt. And we have an unfunded liability of $100 trillion in the form of Medicare and Social Security. The Medicare Trust Fund is exhausted in 2031 and the SSTF in 2034. By law, benefits will be reduced to revenue received, which translates to a reduction of 20% in benefits.

PS. We have had 8 million illegal aliens cross into this country in the last three years with no sign that this invasion will slow down. What the Hell are we doing in Ukraine?

On a personal note, glad to see you back on FR posting frequently.