|
|
Post by bsutrack on Mar 26, 2022 22:39:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Mar 28, 2022 22:29:07 GMT -6
The clean-up of Biden's trip last weekend to Poland continues. The French aren't happy, especially their president, Emmanuel Macron. "Macron has warned against verbal 'escalation’ with Moscow, after Joe Biden called Vladimir Putin a "butcher" who "cannot remain in power". The French President told the France 3 broadcaster: “I think we must do everything to avoid the situation getting out of hand. I wouldn't use these kinds of words because I'm still in talks with President Putin. If we want to do that, we can’t escalate either in words or actions". www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-russia-latest-zelensky-warns-011258787.htmlThe interesting thing to note here is Macron has had telephone conversations with Putin since the invasion of the Ukraine. Further proof that the United States isn't leading this thing. Wouldn't Biden be the one having those conversions if America was leading? Today, Biden had a press conference the intent of which was to promote his 2022 budget; however, it soon began a clean-up session for Biden's verbal gaffes from his European trip. This time reporters from even the MSN poured it on, but as usual Biden was in particular grilled by Fox's Peter Doocy. www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-contradicts-wh-assertion-he-was-not-discussing-putins-power-in-russia-in-warsawBiden attempted to explain his gaffe on US soldiers seeing Ukraine soon as really meaning they were training Ukrainian soldiers in Poland, which actually makes things worse. Did he just give away a state secret? There has been no acknowledgment of the US military training the Ukrainian army in Poland. They did such in Ukraine before the invasion, but those US soldiers were withdrawn. The training of Ukrainian military units in Poland, while a good idea if done in secret, could potentially make those locations military targets for Russian cruise missiles. As I have said, you never know what is going to come out of Biden's mouth when he doesn't read directly from a teleprompter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Mar 29, 2022 7:58:07 GMT -6
Honestly, I'd prefer to have European leaders take charge of this thing. They're the ones with the most to lose, make them stick their necks out.
We should be the back-up plan, like we were in WWI and WWII. It's not our backyard.
Now, if a NATO nation gets threatened/attacked, European NATO members have to pony up their forces and moola to help. No more of this bullshit of us being the world's policeman, and footing the bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 29, 2022 9:05:14 GMT -6
Honestly, I'd prefer to have European leaders take charge of this thing. They're the ones with the most to lose, make them stick their necks out. We should be the back-up plan, like we were in WWI and WWII. It's not our backyard. Now, if a NATO nation gets threatened/attacked, European NATO members have to pony up their forces and moola to help. No more of this bullshit of us being the world's policeman, and footing the bill. That is the logic we, and England, used in the 1920's and 30's, ignoring Europe and it's "local" politics and wars.
What is different today is we are even more enmeshed in global markets. We have much more trade with Europe now and it is in our back yard in that respect. This not some isolate "police action."
This is aggression by one state on another that can only encourage a successful autocrat with dreams of Russian Empire to proceed with the next steps. So. Apart from the lesson of history which led to NATO which has been quite successful, not acting and not being engaged in collective response, means we let European nations "take care of it" without the NATO alliance, and with our having no input. If that strategy did lead to any NATO member being targeted, we are obliged under that treaty to defend them. Better to prevent that than wait and need to take far riskier action at that time.
Of course, also, there is the idea that tolerating autocratic undemocratic brutal aggression along the borders of the EU is just plain wrong... |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 29, 2022 9:17:56 GMT -6
The clean-up of Biden's trip last weekend to Poland continues. The French aren't happy, especially their president, Emmanuel Macron. "Macron has warned against verbal 'escalation’ with Moscow, after Joe Biden called Vladimir Putin a "butcher" who "cannot remain in power". The French President told the France 3 broadcaster: “I think we must do everything to avoid the situation getting out of hand. I wouldn't use these kinds of words because I'm still in talks with President Putin. If we want to do that, we can’t escalate either in words or actions".
Macron hasn't had any success in preventing escalation so far, despite his talking starting just before the invasion started.
He's taking a prominent public role without anyone in Europe designating him as a spokesman in large part for domestic consumption. France loves to think it is the leader of Europe.
The reality is that without a global economic response all the talking he does is not going to get anywhere. It has value as a communication channel, but it's hardly a case where he can make a deal. Europe by itself without the US economic power and the NATO military alliance has no real leverage.
Besides all this your post calling for strong action is contrary to the Trump theory which was either to threaten to back out of NATO and weaken it, or alternatively to place nuclear submarines along the Russian coast to intimidate them...which strikes me as alternatively to weaken the ability to deter Russian action on one hand, and on the other to escalate the conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Mar 29, 2022 11:20:55 GMT -6
The clean-up of Biden's trip last weekend to Poland continues. The French aren't happy, especially their president, Emmanuel Macron. "Macron has warned against verbal 'escalation’ with Moscow, after Joe Biden called Vladimir Putin a "butcher" who "cannot remain in power". The French President told the France 3 broadcaster: “I think we must do everything to avoid the situation getting out of hand. I wouldn't use these kinds of words because I'm still in talks with President Putin. If we want to do that, we can’t escalate either in words or actions".
Macron hasn't had any success in preventing escalation so far, despite his talking starting just before the invasion started.
He's taking a prominent public role without anyone in Europe designating him as a spokesman in large part for domestic consumption. France loves to think it is the leader of Europe.
The reality is that without a global economic response all the talking he does is not going to get anywhere. It has value as a communication channel, but it's hardly a case where he can make a deal. Europe by itself without the US economic power and the NATO military alliance has no real leverage.
Besides all this your post calling for strong action is contrary to the Trump theory which was either to threaten to back out of NATO and weaken it, or alternatively to place nuclear submarines along the Russian coast to intimidate them...which strikes me as alternatively to weaken the ability to deter Russian action on one hand, and on the other to escalate the conflict.
Of the leaders of NATO countries, Macron, arguably, has the best relationship with Putin. They have carried on more dialogue in recent years than most. The German Chancellor is too new to have a solid relationship, even though Germany is a large trading partner. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 29, 2022 11:38:10 GMT -6
Macron hasn't had any success in preventing escalation so far, despite his talking starting just before the invasion started.
He's taking a prominent public role without anyone in Europe designating him as a spokesman in large part for domestic consumption. France loves to think it is the leader of Europe.
Of the leaders of NATO countries, Macron, arguably, has the best relationship with Putin. They have carried on more dialogue in recent years than most. The German Chancellor is too new to have a solid relationship, even though Germany is a large trading partner. This is not about personal relationship. Putin cares not at all about that. He has goals and a plan and will do what he thinks he can get away with factoring in the cost.
Biden and Trump speaking harshly, or sweetly to him will not matter. France and Macron, he could care less. These are not bilateral issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Mar 29, 2022 13:42:06 GMT -6
Honestly, I'd prefer to have European leaders take charge of this thing. They're the ones with the most to lose, make them stick their necks out. We should be the back-up plan, like we were in WWI and WWII. It's not our backyard. Now, if a NATO nation gets threatened/attacked, European NATO members have to pony up their forces and moola to help. No more of this bullshit of us being the world's policeman, and footing the bill. That is the logic we, and England, used in the 1920's and 30's, ignoring Europe and it's "local" politics and wars.
What is different today is we are even more enmeshed in global markets. We have much more trade with Europe now and it is in our back yard in that respect. This not some isolate "police action."
This is aggression by one state on another that can only encourage a successful autocrat with dreams of Russian Empire to proceed with the next steps. So. Apart from the lesson of history which led to NATO which has been quite successful, not acting and not being engaged in collective response, means we let European nations "take care of it" without the NATO alliance, and with our having no input. If that strategy did lead to any NATO member being targeted, we are obliged under that treaty to defend them. Better to prevent that than wait and need to take far riskier action at that time.
Of course, also, there is the idea that tolerating autocratic undemocratic brutal aggression along the borders of the EU is just plain wrong... And just how are we supposed to prevent it? You sound pretty hawkish for a guy with first hand experience of the US going where it doesn't belong. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 29, 2022 18:05:19 GMT -6
That is the logic we, and England, used in the 1920's and 30's, ignoring Europe and it's "local" politics and wars.
What is different today is we are even more enmeshed in global markets. We have much more trade with Europe now and it is in our back yard in that respect. This not some isolate "police action."
This is aggression by one state on another that can only encourage a successful autocrat with dreams of Russian Empire to proceed with the next steps. So. Apart from the lesson of history which led to NATO which has been quite successful, not acting and not being engaged in collective response, means we let European nations "take care of it" without the NATO alliance, and with our having no input. If that strategy did lead to any NATO member being targeted, we are obliged under that treaty to defend them. Better to prevent that than wait and need to take far riskier action at that time.
Of course, also, there is the idea that tolerating autocratic undemocratic brutal aggression along the borders of the EU is just plain wrong... And just how are we supposed to prevent it? You sound pretty hawkish for a guy with first hand experience of the US going where it doesn't belong. I am worried less about Ukraine than the the next threat(s). Not sure what we can accomplish in Ukraine but Putin has proved he will exploit weak states when there is no reaction to his aggression.
The history of Vietnam goes back to the same problem of inaction by Allies to react to aggression. It is costly to NOT have a strong government in place protected by international allies. We entered that Vietnam conflict when it was likely a lost cause. Ukraine is not the only thing at stake here. We have to make sure if we cannot save Ukraine from loss that we do prevent similar threat to others along the Russian border.
We can make the rest of Europe united under NATO and strong enough to discourage Putin from further adventure. We should not hesitate to make it as costly as possible for him to have made any gain in Ukraine and hold it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Mar 30, 2022 6:59:36 GMT -6
It would have been helpful if previous Ukrainian governments had joined NATO before Putin took over Donbas and Crimea in 2014. But that wasn't going to happen because Ukraine was largely pro-Russian until 2014, when the Revolution of Dignity threw out the government. Russian backed separatists occupied Crimea and Donbas in the aftermath. NATO, Europe, and Obama did nothing.
Had Ukraine joined NATO after that, it would have automatically triggered all-out war between NATO and Russia, so they were left to their own devices. And it largely stayed quiet, because Putin didn't know what Trump would do if Russia started pushing farther into Ukraine (I think the phrase "Nuke the Kremlin" may have been his worry). So Putin sat and waited, until he saw his advantage when Biden got into office.
Say what you will about Trump, but he could be pretty damn intimidating when he wants to be. He's around 6'2", 240. Biden is 5'10" and kind of frail looking, not the kind of guy to strike fear into someone. Interesting that Putin is officially listed at only 5'7". He's probably an inch or 2 shorter.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 30, 2022 8:53:39 GMT -6
Putin stayed quiet because he saw good chances Trump would weaken NATO.
Physical intimidation has nothing to do with it, especially after Trump accepts Putin's word overour intelligence service, and shares secrets with Russian ambassador.
Sleepy Joe has avoided any big international disagreements on sanctions and aid to Ukraine. Putin miscalculated the response, and the Ukraine resistance.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Mar 30, 2022 9:40:53 GMT -6
Putin stayed quiet because he saw good chances Trump would weaken NATO. Really..........? European allies increased their NATO contributions by over $50 billion under Trump. You are just a clown............... |
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Mar 30, 2022 9:54:18 GMT -6
Physical intimidation has nothing to do with it, especially after Trump accepts Putin's word overour intelligence service, and shares secrets with Russian ambassador. Wasn't it Hillary who was fed false information by Russian intelligence. You know that whole pesky Steele dossier. Oh and Presidents share classified info with foreign ambassadors all the time. It had to do with ISIS testing a bomb hidden in airport equipment, the only reason it was a story is the media were upset they were prohibited from publicly reporting the same. You are such a hack. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 30, 2022 12:10:36 GMT -6
Physical intimidation has nothing to do with it, especially after Trump accepts Putin's word overour intelligence service, and shares secrets with Russian ambassador. Wasn't it Hillary who was fed false information by Russian intelligence. You know that whole pesky Steele dossier. Oh and Presidents share classified info with foreign ambassadors all the time. It had to do with ISIS testing a bomb hidden in airport equipment, the only reason it was a story is the media was upset they were prohibited from publicly reporting the same. You are such a hack. They share after discussion with their . They also read the damned reports and ask questions. Trump wanted comic books.. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 30, 2022 12:19:27 GMT -6
|
|
