New video on Ward Caroll's channel where he interviews Justin Bronk on the limited Russian use of airpower over Ukraine, why the transfer of MiG-29s from Poland to Ukraine isn't as easy as it seems, and why a No-Fly Zone is a bad idea.
Bronk Interview
Of course Ukraine has a peaceful Bio-lab. So do most of the other countries in the world. I imagine most are researching C-19 and looking for pockets of infection, spread, new variants, vaccinations, etc. Along that line wonder how many Russian soldiers are getting sick?
I expect everyone in the Ukraine and western Europe not vaccinated being involved in this war are at high risk for C-19. That is especially the older persons and very young children. No way to handle all possible severe cases in hospitals.
CMStPnP Euclid Sources, facts, definition of terms?? He has problems with balance as he missed the Putin Poster Child in Europe, whom is the Liberal former head of the SPD Gerhard Schroder. How you could have missed that is bewildering unless your intention is to be partisan here.
Euclid Sources, facts, definition of terms??
He has problems with balance as he missed the Putin Poster Child in Europe, whom is the Liberal former head of the SPD Gerhard Schroder. How you could have missed that is bewildering unless your intention is to be partisan here.
You're missing my point. There have always been Soviet/Russia sympathizers on the left; their proliferation on the right is a relatively new thing.
CMStPnP Euclid It seems to me there are three different distinctions within this topic: 1) Biological research having nothing to do with military weapon applications. In other words, bio labs researching medicines and vaccines for fighting disease. 2) Biological research into dangerous pathogens and to explore how they may be used in biological weapons of war. Here, the potential for such research could be to use it for either the creation of biological weapons, the defense against them, or both. 3) The research and manufacture of biological weapons. It seems to me that the actual verified facts are related to item #2. If so, there may not be any illegality or controversy to this at all. It would depend on the laws pertaining to such research. #2 would also explain Victoria Nuland’s concern that the biological materials in the labs might end up in Russian hands, a concern that would be unlikely if the labs are related to item #1. There is no evidence that these labs were actually manufacturing agent for use in chemical weapons. However, it seems to me that the discovery of these labs in the context of a war would be at least highly significant. Apparently, it was Russia that first broke the news of the labs, and they did so under the, at least, the implied premise that the U.S. was conducting research to develop agents for use in chemical weapons, or even manufacturing them. I perceive a lot of the response to this news to be denial that any of the three items above are true. And out of this denial has come the allegation that Russia made up the whole story to use as a false flag to cover up their plans to actually use chemical weapons to win the war in Ukraine. In other words, Russia will attack with chemical weapons and claim that that the Ukrainians did it. So, under this theory, the Ukrainian labs, allegedly found, will be the source of the weapons Ukraine will use against Russia in Ukraine. Therefore the allegations for the existence of these labs will set the stage for making it believable that Ukraine used chemical weapons, when it will actually be the Russians who will have used them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lUt6DMfrBgIt was crystal clear it was the first instance labs related to civilian pathogens and it was made even clearer if you listened to Senator Warners remarks How you got this all messed up in your head is anyones guess no matter because some on FOX News are confused as well recommend you review the CSPAN coverage
Euclid It seems to me there are three different distinctions within this topic: 1) Biological research having nothing to do with military weapon applications. In other words, bio labs researching medicines and vaccines for fighting disease. 2) Biological research into dangerous pathogens and to explore how they may be used in biological weapons of war. Here, the potential for such research could be to use it for either the creation of biological weapons, the defense against them, or both. 3) The research and manufacture of biological weapons. It seems to me that the actual verified facts are related to item #2. If so, there may not be any illegality or controversy to this at all. It would depend on the laws pertaining to such research. #2 would also explain Victoria Nuland’s concern that the biological materials in the labs might end up in Russian hands, a concern that would be unlikely if the labs are related to item #1. There is no evidence that these labs were actually manufacturing agent for use in chemical weapons. However, it seems to me that the discovery of these labs in the context of a war would be at least highly significant. Apparently, it was Russia that first broke the news of the labs, and they did so under the, at least, the implied premise that the U.S. was conducting research to develop agents for use in chemical weapons, or even manufacturing them. I perceive a lot of the response to this news to be denial that any of the three items above are true. And out of this denial has come the allegation that Russia made up the whole story to use as a false flag to cover up their plans to actually use chemical weapons to win the war in Ukraine. In other words, Russia will attack with chemical weapons and claim that that the Ukrainians did it. So, under this theory, the Ukrainian labs, allegedly found, will be the source of the weapons Ukraine will use against Russia in Ukraine. Therefore the allegations for the existence of these labs will set the stage for making it believable that Ukraine used chemical weapons, when it will actually be the Russians who will have used them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lUt6DMfrBgIt was crystal clear it was the first instance labs related to civilian pathogens and it was made even clearer if you listened to Senator Warners remarks How you got this all messed up in your head is anyones guess no matter because some on FOX News are confused as well recommend you review the CSPAN coverage
The fact that this discussion is even taking place in the U.S. is a huge propaganda victory for the Russians. Yet it continues, because the anti-Ukraine narrative fits the worldview of a certain segment of our population and the self-interest of certain U.S. politicians.
Psychot The fact that this discussion is even taking place in the U.S. is a huge propaganda victory for the Russians. Yet it continues, because the anti-Ukraine narrative fits the worldview of a certain segment of our population and the self-interest of certain U.S. politicians.
Any wonder that the GOP is soft on Putin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onMWYXdf0Do
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
PsychotYou're missing my point. There have always been Soviet/Russia sympathizers on the left; their proliferation on the right is a relatively new thing.
Actually, the United Russia Party is right wing and that is probably why initially. However as you can see in most Western Countries the fact they are known to be looting the Russian Treasury as were some of the Ukranian Oligarchs looting Ukraines Treasury not too long ago..........Money attracts politicians like flys to you know what and it does not matter their party affiliation.
BaltACD Any wonder that the GOP is soft on Putin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onMWYXdf0Do
They were attempting to reset the relationship which I think was equally dumb with the administration before with it's mis-spelled "reset" button. Lavrov is a professional liar and can't be trusted on anything he says or does. The corrupt Russians have always loved him for his ability to misdirect the West because the West always naively looks past his last set of lies and resets their trust in him repeatedly. Putin should have been shunned permanently once he rewrote the laws to allow him to serve indefinitely or it became clear he was looting from the Treasury. Once you steal state funds in any country your a marked man after you leave the political arena unless your able to corrupt who remains left in power or have some sort of a deal with them. That is how Yeltsin escaped punishment and the deal he had with Putin was to allow Yeltsin's family to never be prosecuted for stealing state funds or abusing their position. So one could say, this all started in the Clinton Administration with the Boris Yeltsin agreement, which we probably were not aware of at the time but we are now.
For those of you that have not followed this carefully. Hillary Clinton as Sec of State with Victoria Nueland together royally ticked off Putin when they sent in forces to reverse all the ground work he did with attempting to install his own stooge as leader of Ukraine. Putin viewed both Clinton and Nueland directly responsible for meddling in Ukraines politics (exactly what Mr. Putin was doing) and sparking the Madian protest / uprising. Remember the infamous "F Europe" comment from Ms Nuelands intercepted phone conversation over an unsecure line back then. It was crystal clear at that time she was neck deep in Ukraines politics and selection of it's next leader at the behest of Hillary was the suspicion. Thats what initially set off Putin down this path of escalating confrontation with the West....rightly or wrongly as Putin was doing the same thing with his side but lost the battle of minds. Thats what led up to Trump and the Republicans attempting a later reset of their own. It was common knowledge at the time who ticked off Putin and why and potentially the ship might be set right again via the opposing political party. The reset didn't work because at the heart of Putin's anger was the ridiculous concept that Ukraine was not a state and belonged to Russia.
Ukraine RRs succeed again bring in EU ministers for summit meeting.
Ukraine's rail chief reveals how EU leaders got in and out of Kyiv: 'Everyone should understand that it's war' (msn.com)
CMStPnP BaltACD Any wonder that the GOP is soft on Putin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onMWYXdf0Do They were attempting to reset the relationship which I think was equally dumb with the administration before with it's mis-spelled "reset" button. Lavrov is a professional liar and can't be trusted on anything he says or does. The corrupt Russians have always loved him for his ability to misdirect the West because the West always naively looks past his last set of lies and resets their trust in him repeatedly. Putin should have been shunned permanently once he rewrote the laws to allow him to serve indefinitely or it became clear he was looting from the Treasury. Once you steal state funds in any country your a marked man after you leave the political arena unless your able to corrupt who remains left in power or have some sort of a deal with them. That is how Yeltsin escaped punishment and the deal he had with Putin was to allow Yeltsin's family to never be prosecuted for stealing state funds or abusing their position. So one could say, this all started in the Clinton Administration with the Boris Yeltsin agreement, which we probably were not aware of at the time but we are now. For those of you that have not followed this carefully. Hillary Clinton as Sec of State with Victoria Nueland together royally ticked off Putin when they sent in forces to reverse all the ground work he did with attempting to install his own stooge as leader of Ukraine. Putin viewed both Clinton and Nueland directly responsible for meddling in Ukraines politics (exactly what Mr. Putin was doing) and sparking the Madian protest / uprising. Remember the infamous "F Europe" comment from Ms Nuelands intercepted phone conversation over an unsecure line back then. It was crystal clear at that time she was neck deep in Ukraines politics and selection of it's next leader at the behest of Hillary was the suspicion. Thats what initially set off Putin down this path of escalating confrontation with the West....rightly or wrongly as Putin was doing the same thing with his side but lost the battle of minds. Thats what led up to Trump and the Republicans attempting a later reset of their own. It was common knowledge at the time who ticked off Putin and why and potentially the ship might be set right again via the opposing political party. The reset didn't work because at the heart of Putin's anger was the ridiculous concept that Ukraine was not a state and belonged to Russia.
GOP = Government of Putin
NEWS FLASH! Putin nominated for Nobel Prize
Putin nominated for Nobel Prize in Medicine for eradicating COVID-19 (msn.com)
CMStPnP Lavrov is a professional liar
"A diplomat is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country" - Sir Henry Wooten
CMStPnPFor those of you that have not followed this carefully. Hillary Clinton as Sec of State with Victoria Nueland [sic!] together royally ticked off Putin when they sent in forces to reverse all the ground work he did with attempting to install his own stooge as leader of Ukraine.
Explain what you meant by "sent in forces" with sources for this comment, please?
charlie hebdoExplain what you meant by "sent in forces" with sources for this comment, please?
State Department employees as well as using NGO's that were there, they had a significant impact in turning back....Putins crowd. Should they have got that deeply involved who knows. However the Europeans were asking the same question on involvement and pushing back on some items which led to the infamous phone call intercept.
The word forces in this context would almost always refer to armed forces, not the diplomatic corps or NGO workers.
charlie hebdo The word forces in this context would almost always refer to armed forces, not the diplomatic corps or NGO workers.
OK, well when I say "green cheese" some people think I mean the moon.
CMStPnP charlie hebdo The word forces in this context would almost always refer to armed forces, not the diplomatic corps or NGO workers. OK, well when I say "green cheese" some people think I mean the moon.
You sound like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "
This thread's High Command seems to be asleep again. C'mon guys, what about them hypersonic weapons. General Buck Turgidson: "Gee, I wish we had one of them."
Rick
rixflix aka Captain Video. Blessed be Jean Shepherd and all His works!!! Hooray for 1939, the all time movie year!!! I took that ride on the Reading but my Baby caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
I doubt if Russia has enough of them to make an impact (pun intended).
rixflixThis thread's High Command seems to be asleep again. C'mon guys, what about them hypersonic weapons. General Buck Turgidson: "Gee, I wish we had one of them." Rick
Once launched, I doubt the Russians have any definitive idea of what they are going to hit. Power without command and control is nothing.
Question for into the future, knowing there is a ways to go:
If Ukraine is able to pull this out and survive as a country (which we are all hoping for), they are going to need a lot of help rebuilding and recovering.
Would there be any advantage to Ukraine either adding a third rail or converting at least key routes of their rail system to 1435 mm?
It would enhance economic integration with Europe, allow for easier delivery of reconstruction supplies.
Strategically, it also might make it at least a bit more difficult for the Russians to try something this diabolical in the future as they would not be able to rely on the Ukraine rail system connections to the Russin 1520 mm system for resupply of their invading forces.
Could the IMF or World Bank perhaps finance such an endeavor?
Thoughts? Pros? Cons?
Converting the key routes to 1435mm gauge would definitely help with integrating with western Europe, although some benefit could be achieved by using gauge changing wheel sets such as used between Spain and France.
The Ukrainians have enough animosity towards the Russians (Holomodor) that they may welcome the change in gauge to keep the Russians out.
The Russians may object as the 5' gauge was implemented as a buffer to invasion from the west. OTOH, the change in gauge at the Russian border would still be an impediment - though I don't see any rational person wanting to invade Russia - witness what happened to the Corsican and Austrian Corporals.
It's about damn time that someone referenced Doctor Strangelove! Do you suppose Ukraine has a large supply of precious bodily fluids and that's why Putin wants it?
Judging from his macho-man photos with his shirt off, that might not be much of a stretch.
Yes, it would. NATO doesn't have arms. Its member countries do. NATO wouldn't so much "attack Russia" as defend the member country. Semantics, I know...
Russia keeps talking about these things, but won't actually do them because it wouldn't end well for Russia.
A brief history of Kyiv which everyone might find interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eozIOzO0P_0
Euclid I don’t know that NATO is incapable of providing arms to Ukraine just because they don’t have them. It seems to me that they could obtain them and then provide them to Ukraine. I assume they are refraining in order to be neutral. But I thought the general premise here was that NATO is neutral and will stay out of this war unless Russia attacks a NATO country. So if that is the case, it strikes me as odd that NATO members, being part of the NATO agreement of neutrality, would be allowed to go out on a freelance basis to individually choose to provide weapons to Ukraine and risk triggering a war between Russia and NATO.
We just backed down from being involved in supplying jets to Ukraine because that would be seen as too provocative, and might trigger a war with Russia.
NATO is providing collective protection for the NATO counties. So it does not seem right that individual NATO countries would be allowed to provoke retaliation from Russia which would force the whole collective to go to war, including the U.S.
Hypothetical question: Are NATO countries free to declare war on Russia now under the collective protection of NATO even though none have been attacked to trigger Article 5?
No, the NATO treaty is a defensive alliance, any member declaring war on Russia or launching an attack on Russia, would lose the ability to invoke Article 5 of the treaty.
One final point the European Nations are worried that Russia will not voluntarily stop with just the Invasion of Ukraine and possibly Moldova. They very much would prefer that all the fighting occurs in Ukraine.
Euclid I don’t know that NATO is incapable of providing arms to Ukraine just because they don’t have them. It seems to me that they could obtain them and then provide them to Ukraine. I assume they are refraining in order to be neutral.
NATO's budget is smaller than you think, all it consists of is the Secretary- General and a small amount of admistrative staff. Everybody else is loaned by the members, and those people are paid directly by the loaning member country. Besides some buildings scattered around Europe and likely a few automobiles the only military equipment they own are five E-3A AWACS, and the people manning them are loaned by member countries. Lockheed-Martin or Raytheon will want to see cash for any equipment that they sell to NATO. All thirty current members have a vote on NATO's budget and the chance to reach a consensus is about the same as in the US Congress.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.