“Full NATO vs Russia conflict”

Really?

“Part of NATO in all but name”

Which means what exactly?

The cold stark nature of war.
Ukraine's record gains in reclaiming territory...but is it a false front?
As Winter descends upon Europe it becomes a War of Attrition.
EU are capping Russian Oil Exports
US are supplying longer range missiles to take out deeper strategic Russian Targets.
Whole of Russian wide Covid outbreak is rising to (60,000/day)
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/russia/
Russian Troops are left out in the cold, walking away & handing over Tanks to Ukrainians.
Ukraine with a mass of weapons are fast reclaiming territory as Russia recall Winter outpost Troops.

Russia's default war strategy will no doubt need to play to its own strengths...
Russia owns or leases much of Ukraine's Energy & Resources & can cut supply mid Winter!
EU is also notoriously weak on Winter Resource.
Talk of 70-80% EU stockpile is laughable as any will sell of their reserves for instant 10x profit.

Any recent Ukraine gains will be short lived, racing to secure highly populated poorly resourced cities!
Russia may then also return deeper missiles to further undermine Ukraine domestic security.

Cannon Fodder Russian prisoners will be set free if they bitterly defend poorly resourced cold outposts.
Winter lends to more measured response with key targets the main game...(Increasing Civilian deaths)
We could be looking at a strategic Russian Covid / Winter colder war retreat until a restart in Spring.

etarip wrote:

“Full NATO vs Russia conflict”

Really?

“Part of NATO in all but name”

Which means what exactly?

Not sure if this was intentional or you just like debating but it feels a bit like this:

"The goal is to frustrate and tire by twisting someone's own words back at them, forcing them to defend themselves from their own words. So they argue semantics, attempting to make their someone explain themselves more and more pedantically....."

I am tired and will leave it at that.

At least there’s no mean tweets!

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/biden-locks-in-defence-of-taiwan-austr...

Even better now that Biden has run down the US wartime emergency special oil supply*, given away huge portions of the US weapons cache to Ukraine and done his best to bankrupt the country.

*Also includes the Australian Special Oil Reserve! Yewww

frog, I feel like they’re legitimate questions. I’m sorry that you don’t take them that way.

This isn’t quibbling about semantics.
You’ve put out some pretty big statements there. Devoid of substance or supporting evidence.

Have you read anything about the NATO-Ukraine relationship? The process for joining NATO? The process for foreign volunteers to join the Ukrainian military? (not mercenaries - they’re legally part of the Ukrainian armed forces, btw). What arms ‘have’ (and as importantly ‘have not’) been provided by foreign donors - NATO and non-NATO (and why)? These are all relevant to the statements you make.

Because if you have, it isn’t clear from what you post. I’m happy to continue discussing this. Or not. But if you post stuff without basis then I’m going to keep asking you questions right back. If you post something that you’re drawing your perspective from, there’s a good chance I’ll read it.

From 1997: https://www.brookings.edu/research/enlarging-nato-a-questionable-idea-w…

Ukr perspective on joining NATO (ca 2018)
https://www.unian.info/politics/10023578-is-it-possible-to-join-nato-in…

NATO FAQs:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/faq.htm

NATO / Ukraine relationship:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm

New NATO members:
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-nato-will-change-if-finland-and-sweden…

Why all the NATO stuff? Because people like talking about something that they haven’t tried to understand.

(I get it… it’s the internet)

So, I open one of your links at random:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm

What it describes looks like a very cosy, close and growing relationship or in my crude imprecise shorthand "Nato in all but name"

- Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, which established the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) to take cooperation forward.
- Since 2009, the NUC has overseen Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration process, including reforms under the Annual National Programme (ANP).
- Cooperation has deepened over time and is mutually beneficial, with Ukraine actively contributing to NATO-led operations and missions.
- Priority is given to support for comprehensive reform in the security and defence sector, which is vital for Ukraine’s democratic development and for strengthening its ability to defend itself.
- Since the NATO Summit in Warsaw in July 2016, NATO’s practical support for Ukraine is set out in the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) for Ukraine.
- In June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine’s Constitution entered into force.
- In September 2020, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy approved Ukraine’s new National Security Strategy, which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO.
- In response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, since 2014 NATO has reinforced its support for capability development and capacity-building in Ukraine.
NATO stands with the people of Ukraine and its legitimate, democratically elected president, parliament and government. The Alliance will always maintain its full support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders.

On my "NATO versus Russia" short hand description by which I mean major support in every way possible

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/what-ukraine-needs-t…

https://www.nato-pa.int/news/allied-ukrainian-lawmakers-and-officials-d…

"but our Ukrainian friends need our ongoing, determined and united support to prevail,” President Connolly noted. “This Assembly will continue to play its full part in mobilizing support.”

II find it strange that
- when I state such fairly obvious points (maybe imprecisely) that are just part of the reality that you leap in to debate mode
- pose questions I am sure you know the answer to e.g.
"If NATO expansion to Russian borders is a ‘justifiable’ trigger for war, why has Russia done nothing about Finland and Sweden both commencing and accelerating the process to join? Nothing. Nada, nyet."
- perhaps they already have a serious fight on their hands, perhaps they were taken by surprise, perhaps they will use a different strategy, perhaps they do not have a decade of troubles with those two countries.
You know the answer. Why ask?

Just remember justification does not equal cause. A war can be unjustifiable but still happen. It will have causes. My main points have been on causes not justification.

So I say again, whether intentional or not:, your discussion approach is often:

"The goal is to frustrate and tire by twisting someone's own words back at them, forcing them to defend themselves from their own words. So they argue semantics, attempting to make their someone explain themselves more and more pedantically....."

I know keeping the swellnet "muppets" in line is an important job so I will leave you to it.

etarip says:

‘Why all the NATO stuff? Because people like talking about something that they haven’t tried to understand.’

Skip to the 10:20 mark of this vid ;);)

So… do you understand more? And are you more of an expert ? ;)

Are you posting with ‘basis’ ?
…. or bias ? ;);)

- or maybe your penchant for conflict is still unresolved…

Who knows ;)

- it may take more than a few months to get a proper understanding of that tho.

Do you want me to answer these questions? Or are you speaking rhetorically?

It's almost as if Ukraine are NATO in all but name.

Andy, I wouldn’t say so. But, hey fill your boots.
NATO member / NATO partner. Is there a difference? I think so. A pretty big gulf.

Article 5? Mean anything to you?

Let me guess. You haven’t bothered to check what the difference is? Again. But that’s just semantics, right? (Actually, it’s not…)

JF. I disagree with a few of the assessments of the guy in the video. Happy to explain what and why, but not sure if there’s any point. I also think you’ve confused employment of a simile with a statement of fact.

Frog. I’m sorry that you feel that my questions make you feel that you have to be pedantic in explaining what you mean when you say things like “a full NATO versus Russia conflict”. That’s a fairly emphatic statement.
Not much nuance. If you’re not comfortable explaining what you mean, you don’t have to. Please don’t do it on my account.

I think your three legs of a stool was a good argument, and I acknowledged that. My counter was that one of the “legs” was over-stated as a cause and that it’s essentially a distraction from the Russia’s actual reasons for war. Again, the Finland / Sweden question was to highlight the inconsistency in your position.

Hey I was just going on what a former U.S. Marines intelligence officer was saying.

Yeah, do you know what a simile is?

Like I said, I wouldn’t necessarily agree with everything he says on this topic. Neither would a few former colleagues that were US, UK and Australian military officers. He contradicts himself multiple times over in that video. Rewatch it. (Wait… lemme guess… you DIDN’T watch it!?! You fast-forwarded to 10.20, maybe scrolled back, then maybe a third time? And then you posted? Amirite?)

To be effective, intelligence assessments need to be contested. I think Iraq 2003 (re)taught us that.

Also, and not to detract from the content of the interview…
“William Scott Ritter Jr. (born July 15, 1961) is a former United States Marine Corps intelligence officer and convicted sex offender”

https://web.archive.org/web/20120113031324/https://www.poconorecord.com…

I mean, everyone can make a simple mistake right? (Twice) That guy’s obviously of a good character since then. He’s clearly got heaps of calls for his analysis. completely unbiased. Here’s his biography on the Russia Today (RT) website.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/authors/scott-ritter/

Finally, that interview was punishing to listen to. Those leading questions, narrative setting and the long preambles to new topics by the host sucked. It’s a curse on journalism.

JF, Sorry if I’m being pedantic or combative with your choice of source.

Convicted sex offenders who are paid up contributors to Russia Today aren’t usually my go to for expert analysis. Each to their own.

(Not to take away from ‘some’ of the decent analysis in his interview - AndyM - he wasn’t ‘your’ source, I get it)

etarip,

A clever take down of Scott Ritter without really saying much on any points he made.

Once I saw JF post the link, I was waiting for you to post with the obligatory references to his past charges and the RT links. Sure enough in you swooped.

Strange how you seem to so often follow a sort of Standard Operating Procedure to defend the official narrative (disrupt, tire, frustrate) when swooping in to throw questions at us "muppets" (your word for us quite some posts ago). And now again, once a video that challenges the official narrative is posted, SOP comes out again (jump in, denigrate source, sidestep issues raised). I must say in terms of technique, you laid it on a little too thick - two posts to firmly put Ritter firmly in the untouchable category! Careful next time.

Have you had training in this? Are you paid to do it? Or have you just picked it up by osmosis from your past career?

Swellnet is a bit of a refuge from the overwhelming MSM official narrative on many topics. But in you come to keep us in line.

You obviously have some knowledge. Here you make an offer:
"JF. I disagree with a few of the assessments of the guy in the video. Happy to explain what and why, but not sure if there’s any point."

I would be interested in your explanations.

I don’t think you are frog.

Did you watch the video? It’s littered with contradictions. Here’s two:
- His estimate of Ukrainian and Russian casualties, and ratios, is completely out of whack with anything else I’ve seen - and he provides no evidence of his assertions.
- his contention that Kharkiv was predominantly held by lightly security armed troops (it was) is inconsistent with his subsequent assertion that these troops were able to inflict ‘massive’ casualties on a heavily armoured Ukrainian offensive.
Do I need to point them all out to you or are you capable of critical thought? I reckon you’ve got a strong tendency toward confirmation bias.

And, in the theme of consistency, I’ve posted plenty of links, many from non-western and non-“MSM”. Only once have you actually engaged with the content of those links - and it was when you believed that they supported your argument (when it didn’t - but I’ll accept your POV as a matter of semantics). When I do point out your failure to do so, you cry that I’m twisting your words and making you explain yourself.

Ref credibility of the source - it’s not unreasonable to consider the background and credibility of the source is it? Or do you only consider bias when it comes from western or MSM sources? Again, think about why an *expert* who has limited credibility (yes because of his sex offending but also because of his inconsistency on a range of topics)

Here we go again with your attacks on me. You’ve just accused me of keeping everyone in line with the MSM narrative? What have I posted that links to the MSM as a source? My guess is that you don’t read much of what anyone links to. Unless it supports (confirms) your own bias

Haha etarip… it’s ok, no apologies needed ;)
You are pedantic and combative- but it’s got nothing to do with the ‘choice’ of source…

That was sent to me by a friend of Russian heritage that lives in the US.
As far as I’m aware the bloke gave a commentary on Russia/ Ukraine - not sex advice ;);)

Now… I’m not gonna defend or pretend I know the guy talking. His points on NATO and Russia and Ukraine, however, were interesting. And relevant ;) With or without basis I don’t know - yet he does have some military intelligence credentials and he is also providing slightly inconvenient info ;);)

The host lady did a fantastic job of asking questions without actually talking. That was fascinating ;)
Russian bot ? ;);)

And for a host that ‘sucked’ - well, her main point was that she discouraged all war and is simply trying to gain a clearer and more impartial understanding of the situation.

This is not about taking sides.
It’s not ‘us’ versus ‘them’…

By the way…
ADF members swear allegiance to the crown. Strange how certain judgements on sex offences (or ‘convictions’) have been brought into this…

Is there a crown prince that is a serial sex offender and pedophile that is, to this day, protected by the British monarchy? ;);)

You know, the same institution our soldiers swear an oath of allegiance to?

Wow. That’s inconvenient ;)

Or… is it like ‘illegal’ invasions etc.
Different definitions for different folks ;)
- ok for us but not for them…. Again.

Double standards. Hypocrisy. Propaganda.

God save the king ;);)

JF. Couple of points:
Ref sourcing. Do you often go to sex offenders for sex advice? Interesting that both you and frog have seized upon his conviction for child sex offences but ignored his alignment with Russia Today.

Ref the Monarchy. I’m a republican by inclination.

Ref interviewing style. You must have listened to a different video to me?

Haha … nice edits ;)

Pedantic. Combative.

Your real inclination is only to listen to what you want to hear. That isn’t listening…

And no one is seizing upon anything - you are quick to point out anything that you think can be used to try and discredit info.

Yet your info and sources and understanding of the matter is more informed and accurate ? Of course ;)

Let’s not try be in judgement of one’s character tho. ;);)

Coz some people actually participated in illegal wars and, in doing so, also swore allegiance to a pedophile harbouring bunch of racist warmongers.

But we won’t mention that yeh…

Carry on ;)

Still ignoring his bias and now reverting to personal attacks?

;)

Ignoring your bias…
And highlighting obvious truths.

etarip,

Your debate style is a little combative - leave it at that. I have previously taken on board your confirmation bias point made many posts ago. It is a trap.

However, with the overwhelming official narrative in the MSM and the west winning the info war 10 to 1, even somewhat biased sources are worth considering.

The whole thing is so murky on both sides I actually don't have many totally defendable firm opinions on much of it.

My 3 legged stool analogy seems valid though (which has plenty of grey in it - which is reality). And, I still suspect that a different approach by the US could have put the move by Putin in the too hard basket - too risky and / or too hard to sell to China, India who had to be onboard etc

I think geopolitically the US saw this as a very important opportunity to ensure Germany in particular and Europe as well made a more substantial pivot away from Russia economically and in terms of energy dependence. Germany is the jewel in the crown economically and geographically of the European US "empire". It was drifting Russia's way just through economics and proximity. That is just not acceptable to the US.

Putin's move was encouraged in various ways as part of the ongoing great power struggle where in the realism doctrine that holds sway in the US, unless you are winning you are losing.

It would be mentally easier to just see it all as goody versus baddie narrative and accept it. But I know too much to do that. But not enough to really know what is going on.

Bewildering how anyone can come to the conclusion that the US didn’t intend to goad and provoke Russia into a Ukrainian conflict one way or another. By hook or by crook they were getting that war.

...well they did have to wait a long long four years before the war machine could kick back in...

before they could get the war they were promised

hilary's promise...

JF:

“Coz some people actually participated in illegal wars and, in doing so, also swore allegiance to a pedophile harbouring bunch of racist warmongers.

But we won’t mention that yeh…“

You’re actually quite a funny fella. Love the personal attacks. Keep em coming ;-)

You go away for a while and when you get back Russia has mobilised.

With winter approaching, cheap gas a thing of the past and economic, social and political fractures everywhere, many European leaders have dutifully assumed the position for the honour of the fraternity:

Curious to know what Xi Jinping thinks of his best mate Putin invading and then annexing those regions of Ukraine via vote and "will" of the people.

Does that mean the people of Taiwan can hold a vote for their independence?

Or if Xi supports Russia's activities, can the US now go into Taiwan and then the people can vote to be a new US state? Seems fair. I think they'd prefer that than become part of China...

A US opinion on the current geopolitical obsession outside the approved groupthink:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/stockman-slams-washingtons-point…

Ukraine just applied for NATO membership - probably a reply to the votes and annexing. So many questions: Will they get it?(no: can't when in a dispute apparently) Why no borders outlined for the new Russian annexations? (perhaps due to having Ukrainian soldiers/tanks advancing within them) Who did the pipelines? (he who smelt it dealt it) How much does this feel like escalation? (A bit)

Nice hardbass vid btw - they are not all that different to us ;)

Frog, think about it like a ‘different’ groupthink - it’s just ‘your’ group…

See how that works? Like when you post links to Russian aligned sources. It’s usually just part of the MSM - for a different audience.

You’re fooling yourself that you’re anymore objective for reading and quoting a source - without commentary or reflection no less - assessed as:

“Overall, we rate ZeroHedge an extreme right-biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left.
Detailed Report

Bias Rating: RIGHT CONSPIRACY/PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: Bulgaria
Press Freedom Rating: LIMITED FREEDOM
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY”

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/

But, y’know. Keep on keeping on with your open mind and all that.

Like when Oz Natcab perfectly orchestrate record Covid Tests for record lowest Oz poll day turnout.
Resulting in record lowest percentage governance in Oz history...Here! Here!

Here's an example of the huge difference in Media bias:
MSM will never ever once in the course of time ever report on endless obvious Oz record vote rigging.
MSM will only always ever report on upcoming Russian Vote rigging before or if it ever happens.
We can do away with fucked up factchecker...cause all know this to be true!

truebluebasher wrote:

Like when Oz Natcab perfectly orchestrate record Covid Tests for record lowest Oz poll day turnout.

Resulting in record lowest percentage governance in Oz history...Here! Here!

Here's an example of the huge difference in Media bias:

MSM will never ever once in the course of time ever report on endless obvious Oz record vote rigging.

MSM will only always ever report on upcoming Russian Vote rigging before or if it ever happens.

We can do away with fucked up factchecker...cause all know this to be true!

so, what exactly are you saying TBB? That the “MSM” is not an entirely credible source of news?

Define the “MSM” for a start. Fox / Sky seems pretty “Mainstream” for a lot of people. As does ABC. And the Guardian for others.

But, there’s ‘alternative media’ and then there’s straight out, messed up conspiracy theory sites. Media bias / Factcheck sites provide some context behind that.

Nice little piece on Jimmy Carter, a much maligned President while in office, but a stellar public life post the White House.
https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/jimmy-carter.htm

Axis of Evil launch Hyumooo-2 Missile attack on Korea.
Here's how that came about...

9th Aug 1945 US Bombing of Japan
July 1959 US bombed Japan
Dec 1965 US nuked Okinawa Japan
Sept 1968 US nuked Naha Port Japan
Nov 1968 US tried to Bomb Vietnam but bombed Japan instead...(They all look the same to us!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Sept 1986 Russia tries to bomb itself & bombs China instead.
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/16/world/a-soviet-missile-is-said-to-mi…
1964-1996 Chinese Nuked themselves 40 Times.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-chinas-nuclear-tests/
1st July 2016 Taiwanese fire missile at China but a Taiwanese Vessel gets in the way...(Bummer!)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/world/asia/taiwan-china-missile.html
28th April 2017 North Korean bombs North Korean Industrial / Farm lands
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/when-a-north-korean-missile-accidentall…
Jan 2018 Japan Military issue J Alert just 3 days after Hawaiian Missile Alert.
Only...There was no missile threat or missile anywhere near either Nation.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/16/578283950/japan-also…
https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/japan-issues-false-alarm-over-missile…
Sept 2022 Chinese Space Station Rocket showers debris over Malaysia / Indonesia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/02/chinese-china-rocket-re-e…
4th Oct 2022 - US / South Korean Bombing of South Korea after J Alert.
https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/10/05/south-korea-missile-blows-in-drill-…

GI Joe says if Asian Nations can't blow themselves' up, then it's up to America to show them how.
Oz fully sanction the latest Good Guy's DIY missile strike!

Oz Media bias continued...
1989 -2000 Media Watch was deemed too controversial for the Howard Era so the Host was sacked.
2001 ABC Head was also then sacked & show was gone!
2002 Feedback & The Show returned to constant fire from parliament & Media Moguls.
Even the odd dead fish landed on the host's desk as a gift from News Editors...Hence reprisal Trophy!

Crew would rate Media Watch highly, even with a clean up rate of a few crumbs over 30 years.
Meaning ...all know Oz Media is inherently corrupt or this show wouldn't survive as long as it has!
Note...any intending to host this show need to speak fast to combat the growing pile of Oz Media bias!
ABC could blow their budget on a 2 hour daily Media Watch program & still not make a dent!

A bit of recent historical context to the Ukrainian conflict with Russia.

https://johnmenadue.com/the-great-game-in-ukraine-is-spinning-out-of-co…

The argument of encirclement is not dissimilar to that expounded in the authoritative WW1 history, The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman. Similar encirclement arguments have also been used to explain Chinas' bellicosity and expansionism.

Have Western leaders learnt anything from history?

san Guine wrote:

A bit of recent historical context to the Ukrainian conflict with Russia.

https://johnmenadue.com/the-great-game-in-ukraine-is-spinning-out-of-co…

The argument of encirclement is not dissimilar to that expounded in the authoritative WW1 history, The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman. Similar encirclement arguments have also been used to explain Chinas' bellicosity and expansionism.

Have Western leaders learnt anything from history?

Frightening!!

Jeez, how many claims are in this article without any (or very limited at the best of times) credible references? This is no surprise considering only the most basic formatting guidelines are required to post on this website. Wikipedia is a space shuttle for this.

https://johnmenadue.com/style-guide-email/

flollo,
...how about the credentials of the writer and... it's an opinion piece not an academic treatise.

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as Special Adviser to three UN Secretaries-General. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, and most recently, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism.

great article San Guine, thanks for posting it.

Another really interesting one I read recently is The West’s False Narrative about Russia and China

Jeffrey Sachs wrote:

The world is on the edge of nuclear catastrophe in no small part because of the failure of Western political leaders to be forthright about the causes of the escalating global conflicts. The relentless Western narrative that the West is noble while Russia and China are evil is simple-minded and extraordinarily dangerous. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion, not to deal with very real and pressing diplomacy.

The essential narrative of the West is built into US national security strategy. The core US idea is that China and Russia are implacable foes that are “attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” These countries are, according to the US, “determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.”

The irony is that since 1980 the US has been in at least 15 overseas wars of choice (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Syria, and Yemen just to name a few), while China has been in none, and Russia only in one (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union. The US has military bases in 85 countries, China in 3, and Russia in 1 (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union.

President Joe Biden has promoted this narrative, declaring that the greatest challenge of our time is the competition with the autocracies, which “seek to advance their own power, export and expand their influence around the world, and justify their repressive policies and practices as a more efficient way to address today’s challenges.” US security strategy is not the work of any single US president but of the US security establishment, which is largely autonomous, and operates behind a wall of secrecy.

The overwrought fear of China and Russia is sold to a Western public through manipulation of the facts. A generation earlier George W. Bush, Jr. sold the public on the idea that America’s greatest threat was Islamic fundamentalism, without mentioning that it was the CIA, with Saudi Arabia and other countries, that had created, funded, and deployed the jihadists in Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere to fight America’s wars.

Or consider the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, which was painted in the Western media as an act of unprovoked perfidy. Years later, we learned that the Soviet invasion was actually preceded by a CIA operation designed to provoke the Soviet invasion! The same misinformation occurred vis-à-vis Syria. The Western press is filled with recriminations against Putin’s military assistance to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad beginning in 2015, without mentioning that the US supported the overthrow of al-Assad beginning in 2011, with the CIA funding a major operation (Timber Sycamore) to overthrow Assad years before Russia arrived.

Or more recently, when US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recklessly flew to Taiwan despite China’s warnings, no G7 foreign minister criticized Pelosi’s provocation, yet the G7 ministers together harshly criticized China’s “overreaction” to Pelosi’s trip.

The Western narrative about the Ukraine war is that it is an unprovoked attack by Putin in the quest to recreate the Russian empire. Yet the real history starts with the Western promise to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not enlarge to the East, followed by four waves of NATO aggrandizement: in 1999, incorporating three Central European countries; in 2004, incorporating 7 more, including in the Black Sea and Baltic States; in 2008, committing to enlarge to Ukraine and Georgia; and in 2022, inviting four Asia-Pacific leaders to NATO to take aim at China.

Nor do the Western media mention the US role in the 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych; the failure of the Governments of France and Germany, guarantors of the Minsk II agreement, to press Ukraine to carry out its commitments; the vast US armaments sent to Ukraine during the Trump and Biden Administrations in the lead-up to war; nor the refusal of the US to negotiate with Putin over NATO enlargement to Ukraine.

Of course, NATO says that is purely defensive, so that Putin should have nothing to fear. In other words, Putin should take no notice of the CIA operations in Afghanistan and Syria; the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999; the NATO overthrow of Moammar Qaddafi in 2011; the NATO occupation of Afghanistan for 15 years; nor Biden’s “gaffe” calling for Putin’s ouster (which of course was no gaffe at all); nor US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stating that the US war aim in Ukraine is the weakening of Russia.

At the core of all of this is the US attempt to remain the world’s hegemonic power, by augmenting military alliances around the world to contain or defeat China and Russia. It’s a dangerous, delusional, and outmoded idea. The US has a mere 4.2% of the world population, and now a mere 16% of world GDP (measured at international prices). In fact, the combined GDP of the G7 is now less than that of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), while the G7 population is just 6 percent of the world compared with 41 percent in the BRICS.

There is only one country whose self-declared fantasy is to be the world’s dominant power: the US. It’s past time that the US recognized the true sources of security: internal social cohesion and responsible cooperation with the rest of the world, rather than the illusion of hegemony. With such a revised foreign policy, the US and its allies would avoid war with China and Russia, and enable the world to face its myriad environment, energy, food and social crises.

Above all, at this time of extreme danger, European leaders should pursue the true source of European security: not US hegemony, but European security arrangements that respect the legitimate security interests of all European nations, certainly including Ukraine, but also including Russia, which continues to resist NATO enlargements into the Black Sea. Europe should reflect on the fact that the non-enlargement of NATO and the implementation of the Minsk II agreements would have averted this awful war in Ukraine. At this stage, it is diplomacy, not military escalation, is the true path to European and global security.

Wait, so who’s escalating?

Read those final two sentences critically.
“ Europe should reflect on the fact that the non-enlargement of NATO and the implementation of the Minsk II agreements would have averted this awful war in Ukraine”
- this is hypothesis. Pure and simple. Would or could? For an article that tries to promote a nuanced view of the complex road to war, it certainly fails to reflect that in its summary.

“At this stage, it is diplomacy, not military escalation, is the true path to European and global security.”

Yes. True. A truism. Diplomacy is the path to security. Strong finish.

And who is, and has, consistently escalated militarily?

And consider this comment, in relation to bases outside of their own country:
“ China in 3, and Russia in 1 (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union.”

- the key theme is in the omission of an actual number for Russia, instead inferring that bases in ‘the former Soviet Union’ don’t count. Why not? What is the number if you include them? I’d suggest that it’s not included as it tends to undermine the central (false) theme - that Russia is an innocent victim of western aggression. That omission is an interesting rhetorical tool, but that’s about it.

Boon for bomb business
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-08/us-running-out-of-ammunitions-to…

4th of July (Putin's Birthday Gift was being wrapped very carefully!)

By Aug - Ukraine were bragging they had destroyed every East Ukrainian bridge but the Holy Grail.

Russia's Kerch Bridge Bombing Test may have killed more than the inevitable US / Ukrainian Strike.

The Russians recently conducted an exercise on the Crimea Bridge involving smokescreens... it did not go very well for some unfortunate motorists. pic.twitter.com/s7p36iVRXs

— Intel Doge (@IntelDoge) July 3, 2022

Full history of built in defence against impending US / Ukrainian strike on Kerch Bridge.
https://eurasiantimes.com/russia-boosts-3-7b-kerch-bridge-defenses-as-u…