Question Ruth, as the autocrat's war effort stalls and meanders with no victory in sight do the chances that the autocrat may use battlefield nukes increase?
I support Ruth's position on the war at this time. And I am aware of the position of those who point out that the western powers, the US and the UK, opposed solutions to the conflict proposed early on, in order to "weaken Russia." Also, CIA head, Bill Burns, gave early warnings against the expansion of NATO. The imperial project of the U.S. has driven this war. For me, for us, the difficult part is stopping the military-industrial-congressional complex which would, for example, modernize nuclear weapons, build nuclear submarines, to support never-can-be-used systems. We encircle China. We would not allow Chinese bases in Mexico. I don't know what to do.
Thought this was interesting. Why keep a defense minister/general in charge who keeps losing in Ukraine? Becuase he is one who helped put Putin in power.
Ensuring Russia pays a maximum, ongoing price for this aggression is absolutely critical in preventing further breakdown of international order. I was so pleased to see our President demonstrating our resolve and support for Ukraine in his surprise visit to Kiev on President’s Day.
Feels so nice to be proud of our leadership once in a while!
The purification comment by Tsar Vladimir is interesting. Lenin, Stalin, and other Communist leaders from the past rationalized terror through the same. Some things never change.
Putin has his pro-war propaganda and so did the US in the run up to the Vietnam war. Our leaders had to make an excuse to attack Vietnam; they had to "sell" the war, and they did. Paranoia was used in the form of the Domino Theory. Dissent was squashed, as we saw at Kent State in Ohio. Putin is also squashing dissent about Ukraine, although in a much more authoritarian manner than in the US.
Imperialism is never a national virtue for any country. It shows a national hubris and a national chauvinism that is condescending toward other nations. In Putin's case, his actions could easily be psychopathy driven, as several psychologists have suggested this in the recent past. Much of the imperialism seen in this world has been driven by psychopathy/sociopathy/ megalomania of those in power.
I agree with Ruth in that "Until the United States and its allies give Ukraine the weapons it needs to repel the Russian invader, Putin will consider it worth his while to continue a war he thinks will put him on par with Peter the Great." .............which is right up Putin's alley and his notion of "Enlightened Absolutism" with continued authoritarianism but not of the sort where they rule for their subordinates’ well-being!
I obviously agree with everything you write from a moral standpoint. However, it is important to remember that the weapons on both sides are bought with money from the West. Putin and his cronies did not get rich from selling oil and gas. They got rich from us buying their bloody oil and gas. Rex Tillerson was awarded the medal of freedom from Putin himself in 2012 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/world/americas/tillersons-company-exxon-mobil-follows-its-own-foreign-policy.html) and Russian oil exports to the USA increased strongly under Putin. Thus, both Russia and Ukraine are now paying a horrible price for our mishandling of Putin and his cronies. The West should not just deliver weapons and watch as people are killed. We need to "speak firmly and carry a big stick" rather than keeping silent and distributing a lot of small sticks. This means exhausting all diplomatic channels, making clear demands on Putin, providing an exit strategy for Russia, and imposing a lot of sanctions, even if they are harmful to the West. Putin will not live forever. We obviously need exercises some damage control until he expires.
Agree with Ruth on this; and yet, if Putin is so sure of his position and support, he wouldn’t need to travel by armored train. Further, he wouldn’t have perceived allies building there own private armies. We will have to see where this goes........
I see the US and allies as hesitating too much. If we are in this to win it, we need to "finish the job" at least by giving Ukraine the tools to do so!
I worry that the hesitation of the West not only allows the killing of more Ukrainians, but also the greater destrucofvits infrastructure. It feels like the appeasement policy of Neville Chamberlain, and we know that led to no good!
The problem I have is that Ukraine is being helped in the same way as South Vietnam in the 60s. In the end, there will be lot of human suffering and ecological damage. If the Ukrainian government decides to recapture all its territory, there will be half a million dead, enormous ecological damage, and significant risk of nuclear escalation. In the end, Ukraine will have obtained a lifeless wasteland. Unfortunately, the USA has a long habit of reckless behavior and misguided military interventions: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, the Kurds, ... However, it the West really wanted to help Ukraine, there is an easy way to do so. We need to crash the global oil market by introducing a lookdown more severe than anything seen during the Covid pandemic. By closing all airports and rationing fossil fuels, it should be possible to significantly reduce the price of oil. Without oil, the Russian oiligarchy (pun intended) would collapse, together with Saudi Arabia. This is the sad truth: if you fly or fill up your car, you support Putin. Are we prepared to sacrifice global capitalism to help the Ukrainians? I certainly am.
Question Ruth, as the autocrat's war effort stalls and meanders with no victory in sight do the chances that the autocrat may use battlefield nukes increase?
how does Biden and other world leaders not know this?
I support Ruth's position on the war at this time. And I am aware of the position of those who point out that the western powers, the US and the UK, opposed solutions to the conflict proposed early on, in order to "weaken Russia." Also, CIA head, Bill Burns, gave early warnings against the expansion of NATO. The imperial project of the U.S. has driven this war. For me, for us, the difficult part is stopping the military-industrial-congressional complex which would, for example, modernize nuclear weapons, build nuclear submarines, to support never-can-be-used systems. We encircle China. We would not allow Chinese bases in Mexico. I don't know what to do.
Thought this was interesting. Why keep a defense minister/general in charge who keeps losing in Ukraine? Becuase he is one who helped put Putin in power.
https://www.reuters.com/world/russian-defence-chief-keeps-job-despite-ukraine-routs-thanks-putin-2023-02-20/
Thank you Ruth!
Ensuring Russia pays a maximum, ongoing price for this aggression is absolutely critical in preventing further breakdown of international order. I was so pleased to see our President demonstrating our resolve and support for Ukraine in his surprise visit to Kiev on President’s Day.
Feels so nice to be proud of our leadership once in a while!
The purification comment by Tsar Vladimir is interesting. Lenin, Stalin, and other Communist leaders from the past rationalized terror through the same. Some things never change.
Putin has his pro-war propaganda and so did the US in the run up to the Vietnam war. Our leaders had to make an excuse to attack Vietnam; they had to "sell" the war, and they did. Paranoia was used in the form of the Domino Theory. Dissent was squashed, as we saw at Kent State in Ohio. Putin is also squashing dissent about Ukraine, although in a much more authoritarian manner than in the US.
Imperialism is never a national virtue for any country. It shows a national hubris and a national chauvinism that is condescending toward other nations. In Putin's case, his actions could easily be psychopathy driven, as several psychologists have suggested this in the recent past. Much of the imperialism seen in this world has been driven by psychopathy/sociopathy/ megalomania of those in power.
I agree with Ruth in that "Until the United States and its allies give Ukraine the weapons it needs to repel the Russian invader, Putin will consider it worth his while to continue a war he thinks will put him on par with Peter the Great." .............which is right up Putin's alley and his notion of "Enlightened Absolutism" with continued authoritarianism but not of the sort where they rule for their subordinates’ well-being!
I obviously agree with everything you write from a moral standpoint. However, it is important to remember that the weapons on both sides are bought with money from the West. Putin and his cronies did not get rich from selling oil and gas. They got rich from us buying their bloody oil and gas. Rex Tillerson was awarded the medal of freedom from Putin himself in 2012 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/world/americas/tillersons-company-exxon-mobil-follows-its-own-foreign-policy.html) and Russian oil exports to the USA increased strongly under Putin. Thus, both Russia and Ukraine are now paying a horrible price for our mishandling of Putin and his cronies. The West should not just deliver weapons and watch as people are killed. We need to "speak firmly and carry a big stick" rather than keeping silent and distributing a lot of small sticks. This means exhausting all diplomatic channels, making clear demands on Putin, providing an exit strategy for Russia, and imposing a lot of sanctions, even if they are harmful to the West. Putin will not live forever. We obviously need exercises some damage control until he expires.
Agree with Ruth on this; and yet, if Putin is so sure of his position and support, he wouldn’t need to travel by armored train. Further, he wouldn’t have perceived allies building there own private armies. We will have to see where this goes........
Putin needs a theme for his war. Let’s see,”Make Russia Great Again!” That’ll work. A similar one seems to work for Putin’s protege!
Former Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor gives detail, context, thoughtful Frontline interview.
https://youtu.be/yOTx7HxVDsM
If what Ruth is saying is true, the only solution is to hire Melania Trump to assassinate Putin. (She'll do it, if the price is right.)
That is correct, but does he intend to use nuclear weapons?
I see the US and allies as hesitating too much. If we are in this to win it, we need to "finish the job" at least by giving Ukraine the tools to do so!
I worry that the hesitation of the West not only allows the killing of more Ukrainians, but also the greater destrucofvits infrastructure. It feels like the appeasement policy of Neville Chamberlain, and we know that led to no good!
The problem I have is that Ukraine is being helped in the same way as South Vietnam in the 60s. In the end, there will be lot of human suffering and ecological damage. If the Ukrainian government decides to recapture all its territory, there will be half a million dead, enormous ecological damage, and significant risk of nuclear escalation. In the end, Ukraine will have obtained a lifeless wasteland. Unfortunately, the USA has a long habit of reckless behavior and misguided military interventions: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, the Kurds, ... However, it the West really wanted to help Ukraine, there is an easy way to do so. We need to crash the global oil market by introducing a lookdown more severe than anything seen during the Covid pandemic. By closing all airports and rationing fossil fuels, it should be possible to significantly reduce the price of oil. Without oil, the Russian oiligarchy (pun intended) would collapse, together with Saudi Arabia. This is the sad truth: if you fly or fill up your car, you support Putin. Are we prepared to sacrifice global capitalism to help the Ukrainians? I certainly am.