Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 19 June 2022

Various driveby media television networks ^ | 19 June 2022 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[PA-RIVER]

Like Mao, This is Biden’s “Great Leap Forward”.

Mao had furnaces built all over China, melting everything into pig iron for a year, until he realized it was garbage.

Biden saw the electric car, and wanted it to be his legacy. To claim it for his own, like Kennedy and the moon shot.

[kabar]

The war will end when the Russians stop the invasion and withdraw. Why is this not ALSO an option?

Ukraine is not Afghanistan. Russia shares a 1,500 mile border with Ukraine along with hundreds of years of history and culture. Russia will never give up Crimea. If I were to point to one indicator as to why Russia will not withdraw, it would be Putin's July 2021 article, "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" Even if Putin were to depart, his successor would embrace Putin's beliefs about Ukraine.

On March 7, 2022 Russia issued Ukraine a list of conditions that it must follow to halt the invasion.

The demands include Ukraine ceasing military action, changing its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledging Crimea as Russian territory, and recognizing the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.

In the end, Ukraine will meet most of Russia's demands.

[kabar]

June 20 (Reuters) - Russia on Monday demanded that Lithuania immediately lift a ban on the transit of some goods to the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

The Russian foreign ministry told the Lithuanian envoy in Moscow that if cargo transit between the Kaliningrad region and the rest of Russia through Lithuania was not restored, Moscow would respond to protect its interests.

[Alas Babylon!]

Putin's July 2021 article, "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" Even if Putin were to depart, his successor would embrace Putin's beliefs about Ukraine.

This is as valid, internationally, as Hitler's designs on other countries in Mein Kampf and German Lebensraum.

What happens to those people who DO NOT want to be part of Russia?

Is their fight futile?

Would our State Department, even under Mike Pompeo, go along with this? Would those small countries either ally together or seek larger allies?

Of course they would.

What Russia would get if the tried to make these "Historical Unity" neofascist/neoczarist fantasies reality is world war.

I think it's safe to say the West would be opposed.

And here we are.

[Alas Babylon!]

...Moscow would respond to protect its interests.

So, what will be Moscow's response?

Is it war with the West?

I don't think the Russians will dare that. The trains to Kaliningrad aren't fundamental to their existence, especially in that it will rally the West against them and force them to take military action. They can still resupply by sea. The Russians will continue to bitterly complain, but I don't think they'll go beyond words.

What do you think?

[kabar]

Did you read the entire article? This is not Mein Kampf and German Lebensraum.

The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia. We see them as our own close people.

Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else's, and is not a tool in someone else's hands to fight against us.

We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians' desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.

I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.

[kabar]

So, what will be Moscow's response?

I have no idea what the response will be, but when TASS reports it and cites a Foreign Ministry statement, this is no idle threat.

"We pointed out in this regard that if the transit of goods between the Kaliningrad region and the rest of Russia through Lithuania is not fully restored, Russia reserves the right to take action to protect its national interests," the ministry said in a statement after summoning Lithuania's Charge d Affaires Virginija Umbrasene.

Just as importantly, what will NATO's response be if there is a military confrontation over access?

[Alas Babylon!]

I read it and I’m not impressed. I disagree. It is Mein Kampf, sorry, but wrapped in Russian platitudes.

The Ukrainians don’t want to be Russians. Self determination. Putin’s desires do not trump that, anymore than Hitler’s demands that the Sudetenland or Danzig be Germany’s...

[Alas Babylon!]

Article V.

[kabar]

The Ukrainians don’t want to be Russians. Self determination.

Putin is mot against self-determination. Minsk Agreement: Full text in English

Russia has done everything to stop fratricide. The Minsk agreements aimed at a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbas have been concluded. I am convinced that they still have no alternative. In any case, no one has withdrawn their signatures from the Minsk Package of Measures or from the relevant statements by the leaders of the Normandy format countries. No one has initiated a review of the United Nations Security Council resolution of 17 February 2015.

During official negotiations, especially after being reined in by Western partners, Ukraine's representatives regularly declare their ”full adherence“ to the Minsk agreements, but are in fact guided by a position of ”unacceptability“. They do not intend to seriously discuss either the special status of Donbas or safeguards for the people living there. They prefer to exploit the image of the ”victim of external aggression“ and peddle Russophobia. They arrange bloody provocations in Donbas. In short, they attract the attention of external patrons and masters by all means.

Apparently, and I am becoming more and more convinced of this: Kiev simply does not need Donbas. Why? Because, firstly, the inhabitants of these regions will never accept the order that they have tried and are trying to impose by force, blockade and threats. And secondly, the outcome of both Minsk‑1 and Minsk‑2 which give a real chance to peacefully restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine by coming to an agreement directly with the DPR and LPR with Russia, Germany and France as mediators, contradicts the entire logic of the anti-Russia project. And it can only be sustained by the constant cultivation of the image of an internal and external enemy. And I would add – under the protection and control of the Western powers.

[kabar]

If that happens, it will be interesting to see who blinks first. A lot at stake for both parties. A mistake by either party could trigger a nuclear conflict. Over what?

The ministry emphasized that Russia had strongly protested against Lithuania’s decision. "We demanded that the restrictions be lifted immediately," the statement said.

The Foreign Ministry noted that Russia viewed the move as openly hostile, adding that it violated Lithuania’s international legal obligations, namely the 2002 Joint Statement of the EU and the Russian Federation on Transit between the Kaliningrad Region and the rest of the Russian Federation.

[Alas Babylon!]

Russia has done everything to stop fratricide.

Seriously, LOL?

Georgia, Chenya, Crimea and now Ukraine. And before 2014 they had their own stooges in Ukraine. Now we have ours. But they're ALL stooges.

Self-serving platitudes.

He's only interesting in ruling them... But they can still be Ukrainian.

Can it be anymore brazen?

Suffice to say we won't agree. But I'm not taking his statements at face value. His actions speak louder than words. Putin wants to bring back Czarist Russia, even at the expense of other people's self determination.

Russia ally Kazakhstan refuses to recognise Donetsk, Luhansk as 'independent republics'

Putin ‘threatens action’ against ex-Soviet states if they defy Russia (Kazakhstan in particular)

It's plain to see Russia seeks a hegemony over the former Soviet Republics.

In any case, either Russia will win or have to settle with the status quo.

War would be worse for them than NATO.

[Alas Babylon!]

A mistake by either party could trigger a nuclear conflict.

I disagree.

Russia cannot win in such a conflict, but rather lose everything. The rulers would ALL die. Not all Russians in such a scenario would allow it, either.

The USA will be very damaged, but not destroyed.

In any case, we can not allow Russia to wave the nuclear "member" to get their way every time it is convenient, either.

They deserve total world condemnation for doing so. Image if the USA threatened nuclear war for anyone opposing them? The outrage would be deafening. It is beyond ridiculous.

[kabar]

His actions speak louder than words. Putin wants to bring back Czarist Russia, even at the expense of other people's self determination.

Pure hyperbole. Russia is an aging country of 142 million. The median age is 40.3 years making it the 52 oldest country in the world. Its fertility rate is 1.6, far below replacement levels, the 184th lowest in the world. Life expectancy is 72 years with males at 67 years. The annual population growth rate is -.22%. The Russian population pyramid portends future problems.

Real GDP per capita is $26,500 (2020 est.), 72nd highest in the world. Real GDP (purchasing power parity) $3.9 trillion, 6th largest in the world. Germany, France, and Italy combined have $9.3 trillion.

Russia spends 4% of its GDP on defense, a little over $100 billion. We spend close o 7 times that.

Russia has 850,000 total active duty troops (300,000 Ground Troops; 40,000 Airborne Troops; 150,000 Navy; 160,000 Aerospace Forces; 70,000 Strategic Rocket Forces; approximately 20,000 special operations forces; approximately 100,000 other uniformed personnel (command and control, cyber, support, logistics, security, etc.); estimated 200-250,000 Federal National Guard Troops (2021)

This is not the stuff of an imperial power capable of invading, defeating, and occupying NATO countries. The Russian experiences in Afghanistan and now Ukraine reflect a military that is less than equipped to engage in imperial wars.

The real threat is China and has been for decades. Russia is a distraction. And now we have driven Russia and China closer together. and it is we who are becoming more isolated from the world. Russian energy, minerals, and food are eager;u purchased by the rest of the world. The sanctions are not working. And the dollar may become one of the first casualties.

[kabar]

Like you, I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis, probably the closest we have ever been to a nuclear war. It was so close that high ranking officials in the Kennedy Administration sent their children out of DC.

Nuclear deterrence has always depended on the other guy being a rational actor. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was the strategy along with having the ability to survive a first strike. The triad of land-based ICBMs, submarine based ICBMs, and aircraft that could deliver nuclear weapons insured that survivability. This was the strategic nuclear mix.

In addition, we developed a whole range of tactical nuclear weapons to gain superiority on the battlefield and at sea. The Russians, and now the Chinese, have done the same thing. To some degree, this has undermined our MAD strategy. It may tempt someone to use them more easily.

As a Political Science/International relations major, undergrad and graduate school, I had to read all the Herman Khan books that thought the unthinkable and discussed the operational strategy of fighting a nuclear war. There are no winners in a nuclear exchange nor are there any guarantees that the US would be damaged but not destroyed.

We must take Putin seriously. Many pundits posited that Putin would not invade Ukraine. They were wrong. The first thing that Putin did after the invasion was to put his nuclear forces on high alert. If you believe Kennan and Jack Matlock, career FSOs and former ambassadors to the Soviet Union, Ukraine is an entity unto itself when it comes to its importance to Russian national security. We are playing with fire. The US was ready to go to nuclear war over Cuba. The Russians may feel the same way about Ukraine being part of NATO.

I fear the law of unintended consequences. Neither side may not want a nuclear war, but escalation takes on a life of its own. Look how easily we slipped into a new Cold War. You supported Article 5 if Russia had a dust up with Lithuania over access to Kaliningrad. I doubt Turkey and Hungary would go along with that. And you can count on the French and Germans to balk at any military response.

The Soviets blinked over Cuba. Will we be as rational over Ukraine?

[Alas Babylon!]

I spent 22 years in the US Air Force learning not only war fighting doctrine, but nuclear war fighting doctrine, which included not only fighting a nuclear war, but surviving and winning one. Perhaps this sounds to some like madness, but yes indeed, while we publicly said no one could win a nuclear war, and this became the media view of our times told to the people, but during all of that talk we prepared exactly for nuclear war, and still do. Over those years I was assigned to NORAD, SAC, DIA and the Air Force Intelligence Command.

Like you, therefore, I have my own unique expertise, and am not just spouting off. I know, for example, the methods and means by which we can detect, much earlier than most think, nuclear missile activity, as well as counter measures and the most valuable targets selection. You should note that these are not what you think, but are designed to take out the leadership, as we assume they don’t care about casualties in the same way we do. We also have let them know, we know where they go to hide—they cannot mask this enough, as ELINT and hurried movement of assets visible by satellite and other means always give them away.

Do you not wonder what the successor to the SR-71’s most important missions these days are?

The Russians have slightly more nuclear weapons than us. The Chinese have much, much less. In any case, these raw numbers are mostly worthless because if the weapon is not on a deliverable platform when the balloon goes up, it probably never will be mounted for later.

Reagan told Gorbachev in no uncertain terms that while he and his generals might go underground to escape the glassing of Moscow, they would die in their holes, unable to get themselves out when every entrance/exit was obliterated.

Also, and I think since we’ve seen the Russian military corruption in real time in this war, I’m not at all sure the Russian platforms are as viable as they think, as nuclear war isn’t something done every day, and maintaining such weapons are hella expensive, and that money probably got siphoned into other “purposes”. Not only are we in parity in delivery systems, but our position in stealth technology means they won’t be able to stop our bombers, and certain other aircraft the general public has no knowledge of.

That hyper-focus hasn’t changed since I retired, and still goes on to this day. Our technology has really leaped ahead of them and especially since the fall of the Soviets.

Simply put, they haven’t had the money to continue even the Soviet brute force abilities/strategy, which continues to be the doctrine they still teach themselves when war gaming against us.

BTW, I was 4 years old in 1962. I lived thru the Cuba crisis, but don’t remember it beyond history.

[Alas Babylon!]

I fear the law of unintended consequences. Neither side may not want a nuclear war, but escalation takes on a life of its own. Look how easily we slipped into a new Cold War. You supported Article 5 if Russia had a dust up with Lithuania over access to Kaliningrad. I doubt Turkey and Hungary would go along with that. And you can count on the French and Germans to balk at any military response.

This is ridiculous. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has greatly strengthened NATO, and recommitted the member nations resolve. In fact, it drove the Swedes and Fins into NATO arms.

It is not "me" that supports Lithuania. It is NATO's obligation, and they know if they do not vigorously respond the whole treaty dies then and there. Turkey risks being thrown out if that happens and they try to stop a response. I'd expect them to try to get the Russians to stop more than arm up against NATO. Still, the Turks are diverging from the West daily, and that would be final straw. Erdogan isn't in the catbird seat like he thinks. We could always start arming Kurds like we do Ukrainians. (and I say this tongue in cheek)

But in the end, you are right to fear the law of unintended consequences. But THAT fear was unleashed when Russia invaded. Everything else is reaction.

And you don't have to tell me about clueless/feckless Joe Biden. We both know Trump wouldn't have let it get this far.

Imagine the world with a Trump unfettered with the Russian hoax and having the ability to wheel and deal with Putin. A glorious world we'll probably never know now.

[Alas Babylon!]

...they won’t be able to stop our bombers

This is actually an error on my part.

I shouldn't have used the word bombers, because this implies a certain subset of aircraft we have.

I should have said "airborne assets", which include a wide range of flying platforms/vessels.

[kabar]

You don't know, what you don't know. The Russian hypersonic missile capability took us somewhat by surprise. ‘National pride is at stake.' Russia, China, United States race to build hypersonic weapons-- Despite hype and technological hurdles, a hypersonic arms race is accelerating

I would like to think that our intelligence community knows what is going on, but they have had a checkered record based on my own firsthand knowledge. We have become too reliant on SIGINT.

During my 8 years in the USN as a Supply Officer, my only real experience with nuclear weapons was attendance at a week long school on the storage of nuclear weapons on ships. I have seen life sized replicas of Fat Man and Little Boy. I also visited the ground zero museum in Nagasaki. It is difficult to comprehend the devastation these weapons can cause. The ones we have now dwarf those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In 1999 I was the only civilian in the Capstone Program for newly frocked admirals and generals. We visited all the major military commands in the US including SAC, NORAD, and Space Command. We toured and got briefed inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex. Also, I was able to get in the well of a tanker while we fueled a B-2 Stealth bomber. Awesome sight.

Do you not wonder what the successor to the SR-71’s most important missions these days are?

We have satellites that we can move around over targets that can do much of the same work.

That hyper-focus hasn’t changed since I retired, and still goes on to this day. Our technology has really leaped ahead of them and especially since the fall of the Soviets.

I hope and pray that is true, but the Russians only need a small percentage of their missiles to get thru to put a serious hurt on this country. EMP strikes can also be devastating along with cyber-warfare attacks.

BTW, I was 4 years old in 1962. I lived thru the Cuba crisis, but don’t remember it beyond history.

LOL. I was 19. You missed the "get under your desk" drills in elementary school and the fallout shelter craze. My generation was far more concerned about nuclear weapons and the devastation they could cause. In some respects, that is a good thing. I worry that our current leaders lack the comprehension and fear of such civilization ending weaponry. No winners.

[kabar]

This is ridiculous. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has greatly strengthened NATO, and recommitted the member nations resolve. In fact, it drove the Swedes and Fins into NATO arms.

That's the Biden propaganda. Turkey and Hungary aren't going along with the sanctions. Germany and France are slow delivering weapons to Ukraine. Sweden and Finland want the US to be the guarantor of their sovereignty. Cheap insurance policy. As I mentioned, NATO is still a paper tiger for the reasons I mentioned. Let's see now long the "unity" and commitment last once the war dissipates.

Silvio Berlusconi wrote an excellent article on June 2. It was titled, "Russia has already lost to a more united and determined West. But now the free world finds itself isolated due to a lack of leaders." Among his other observations in this lengthy piece:

Our most serious mistake, however, would be to take for granted and definitive a system that is questioned in much of the world and that for example in Italy, over three thousand years of history, has existed for 75 years because only with the introduction of suffrage universal female, which took place in 1946, it was possible to speak of complete democracy.

The bitter reality of which we must take note is that the West, due to the lack of authoritative leadership in recent years and in the present but also due to lack of confidence in itself, in its own ideas, in its own system of values, has not been able to create neither a system of alliances nor an attractive political and economic proposal comparable to that advanced by China as the "silk road". On the contrary, the West has registered some disastrous setbacks, for example in Afghanistan, which have further undermined its credibility in the eyes of the ruling classes and public opinion of the entire planet.

In all of this, Europe really risks becoming Manzoni's "earthenware vase among iron vessels" in the decades to come. Our countries have neither the military strength nor the condition of geographic isolation that to some extent protect North America. One can be "economic giants and political dwarves" only as long as someone else is willing to take charge of our security and our freedom. This is the reason we are bound by an unquenchable debt of gratitude and loyalty to the United States. But the signs of an inevitable downsizing of Washington's role as guardian of collective security are increasingly evident because it is increasingly concerned by China's challenge on the Pacific.

Hence, the political and military unity of Europe, often invoked, becomes no longer just a desirable choice but an unavoidable necessity, in the face of the challenges of imperialist totalitarianisms such as that of China, and in the face of the challenges of Islamic religious fundamentalism in the face of uncontrolled migratory waves.

Unity which means first of all an authentic awareness and sharing of the values on which our social and civil model is based. Those values are in danger and no one is able to protect them alone. This is the perspective error of the so-called sovereignists. The only way to play a role in the world, but also to defend our very way of being, is to join forces, economic, political and military. We have been asking for this for many years, but so far the progress made has been only symbolic. And yet we must realize that what unites us, as Europeans, is much stronger than what divides us.

A Europe capable of a common foreign policy must have a common military instrument, I repeat once again. Common defense means economies of scale, it means avoiding duplication, in short, it means greater efficiency with the same expenditure ... It means reaching a critical mass, of men and means, that no country alone is able to field.

I see NATO becoming less relevant in the future as Europeans want a joint military that can address European problems, like the migrants surging up from Africa and the Middle East.

But in the end, you are right to fear the law of unintended consequences. But THAT fear was unleashed when Russia invaded. Everything else is reaction.

I don't trust the judgment of Biden and his foreign policy team. We are in very dangerous seas on a rudderless ship with no one at the helm. God help us.