Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Coons (D-DE) visited Kyiv on Thursday and pledged that there will still be bipartisan support for providing massive amounts of aid after the upcoming midterm elections.
“I am confident that bipartisan robust American support for the fight of the Ukrainian people will continue in Congress,” Coons said.
Supporters of Ukraine in Washington have been concerned after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said a Republican-controlled House won’t be willing to write a “blank check” for Ukraine. But other Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel (R-KY), have been insisting the aid flow will continue unimpeded.
Coons and Portman met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during their trip to Kyiv. Portman said that he vowed the US will be backing Ukraine until it achieves victory, which for Zelensky and his government means driving Russia out of all of the territory it controls, including Crimea.
“I said the US must remain committed to aiding Ukraine to victory. I believe a Ukrainian victory is necessary to reaffirm the importance of the sovereignty of free nations and the importance of upholding international law around the globe,” Portman wrote on Twitter of his meeting with Zelensky.
After the meeting, Zelensky described Portman and Coons as “true friends” of Ukraine and said they support a “joint victory.”
While Republicans overall are expected to continue supporting spending money on the war in Ukraine, 57 House Republicans voted against the $40 billion Ukraine aid bill that was passed in May, and more are said to be questioning the policy.
Daniel Vajdich, a lobbyist for the Ukrainian government, recently told POLITICO that he expects Republicans to keep sending weapons, but he worries the GOP might not support sending so much money to fund the Ukrainian government. Ukraine’s parliament passed a draft 2023 budget that has a record $38 billion deficit, and the US is expected to pick up most of the tab.
Portman is not running for reelection in OH and will be replaced by JD Vance. Vance is against funding stupid endless wars – as are Mcmasters (AZ) and Boldac (NH). Let’s hope these R newcomers lead a new Senate coalition that stands up to McConnell and his cronies who are paid off by the MIC in DC.
If Vance is against funding stupid endless wars then he has to be for ‘funding’ endless sanctions – otherwise allowing Russia to annex parts of Ukraine is going to unleash exactly the kind of endless wars he supposedly is against.
As for the MIC – they stand to get payed much better from a Russian victory as very large parts of the world then will have to do like the Germans have already done i.e. dramatically increase their military spending – while the Russians losing will very likely make this war only a short term boom in military spending – but do not let this very obvious consequence disturb you.
I disagree with your crazy conclusions. In your world Russia is both too weak to fight Ukraine but strong enough to fight the world.
Textbook fascist talk.
Where did I conclude/propose that Russia would fight the world?
You make the mistake of arguing with the image of me that you have inside your own head.
Nothing in my comment suggested that Russia is too weak to fight Ukraine and I have made no comments to suggest this ever.
Nothing in my comment suggests that Russia will fight the world – and I have made no comments to suggest this ever.
What I have stated several times is that other countries may copy the SMO on their neighbors if Putin’s SMO is not defeated at the very least as a project for improving Russia’s economic prospects.
What I have also proposed is that Russia though obviously weak now like Germany after WWI could easily become a threat to its neighbors in a fairly short timeframe – indeed that even weakened as it may be now, it still would be a major threat to e.g. Georgia.
In what way is Russia the threat? Russia wants to stop others eg NATO destroying it as they tried in the 1990s and are still trying to do now.
If you are in doubt ask the Georgians and the Ukrainians – or the Kazakhstans.
No need to copy and paste preceding comment. Anti-war commenters can read the contents of a post you are commenting on by turning their gaze upwards. lol
If answering to a multiple part comment, I’ll quote it to show what is my reply to each section, If several people answer the replay can appear far from the comment it was a reply to, and from time to time we also have people deleting their comment in which case it gets difficult to see what I’m replying to.
I make it very clear what is a quote with a bar on the left – so if you find it tedious to read you can use that device to skip the quotes.
You’re clogging up the board.
Fiddle-dee-dee, how he DOES run on 😉
I’m giving pertinent replies to people responding to my comments, if you do not like it just do not reply to my comments – I know you might like Russian conditions also here, but AFAIK we still have freedom of speech here.
In your mind, they are pertinent. Maybe you need to copy and paste so you can remember what you’re replying to?
If you have the proof that the answers are not pertinent then by all means copy out the comment that they were a reply to and my answer to illustrate how they were not pertinent – as it stands all we have is now an assertion from you that I have given such not pertinent answers – i.e. the burden of proof is on you!
You really need to go back and look at details in history:
Georgia: attacked russian troops in south ossetia, at the direction of the neo con clown, shakisveli;
Kaz: stopped a coup formented by cia/ned/mi6, came in at the request of existing govt;
Ukraine: details are ckear, govt was/is nazi dominated, planned to attack donbass and slaughter russian population.
Two things:
1) that is the Russian version of events
2) even according to that version Georgia attacked Russian troops in Georgia – so they were not supposed to be there in the first place!
Undiluted Russian propaganda – if you have the documents to support these assertions feel free to provide them.
The vast majority of people killed )on both sides) in the Donbas conflict were killed within the first year and a half of the start of Russian supported separatist insurrection – the notion that Putin invaded to stop this is patently absurd as Putin has by now killed more of the Russian speaking people you propose he invaded to protect twice over at least:
1) as victims of hiss war collateral damage
2) as forcibly conscripted troops in the LNR and DPR forces
So once again if the purpose was to stop the killing of these people then it was a very bad way to achieve it!
That was the UN version of events. Forgetaboutism raising it’s head again with you.
Did you really mean to say it was the UN version of events!?
What I did was to show that even by their own version the Russians who were attacked were in a country that they should not have been in i.e. Georgia specifically the South Ossetian part of Georgia. So no I did not even present you the UN (let alone the US) version of events – I used your own version against you.
The Georgian regime claimed that South Ossetia was part of Georgia.
The Russian regime disagreed.
South Ossetians seem to have agreed with the Russians.
I know however the UN considers it part of Georgia – given the recent ‘referendums’ in Ukraine, I’m not prepared to recognize South Ossetia neither as an independent state nor as part of Russia as I find the process whereby ‘nations’ or territories decide that they want to be independent or part of Russia while under Russian control very suspicious.
There is a generally recognized process for seeking independence – and it does not involve foreign ‘occupation’ followed by referendum.
Oh no – You (YOU) aren’t prepared to recognize South Ossetia’s quest for self-determination. Such an authoritative figure and statement that carries absolutely no weight.
Well me and all but these nations: Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Syria – but please do not let that small fact disturb you – so while I admit that my opinion on the subject is completely irrelevant – you could perhaps consider the idea that my opinion was formed on the basis of what the nations of the UN think/do.
You are singling out a suspect few. Look at how many allies Russia has, and how few are left in the glorious Empire of Lies, the West!!
I can easily expand the list of countries that believe Russia is a threat – what I did here was to point to the countries that actually has experienced Russia as a threat and add Kazakhstan for good measure as the recent statements by the Russian authorities have very much been seen as a poorly veiled threat the their independence.
As for Russia’s allies – are you talking about all 4 of them – you know the allies that voted with them in the UN – or how do you propose we measure a true allied nation?
A threat just to their neighbors, while we have forces all over the world, threatening numerous nations.
Whataboutery – as in completely irrelevant to why the Finns and the Swedes want to join NATO.
Forgetaboutism and hypocrisy – chronic too.
Sure it would be – you seem to have forgotten a hell of a lot!)
There you are with another chapter of your “whataboutery” you mentioned.
It could look like it is, but as you actually claim that I have forgotten about a lot of things my reply that it is you who has forgotten about ‘stuff’ is only whataboutism if I raise a lot of irrelevant stuff you have forgotten about (like Vietnam etc.) as it happens I imply that you have forgotten about the relevant stuff we are debating – so not whataboutism.
Senile, demented Biden is destroying, the EU, NATO, and the global economies with sanctions. He is obsessing with nuclear weapons in company with the Zelensky drug addict. He is provoking China and Iran, if he gets his way there is nothing left of the blue planet.
Well Biden does seem senile, but he is not destroying NATO – he does after all not rule NATO, and he does have people to handle his in/ill-advised moves. The world economy was on the brink of a recession even had Putin not invaded Ukraine – and the consequences of Biden not placing sanctions on Russia would have been much more likely to caused NATO to fall apart.
If there had been no sanctions the amount of money diverted into arms procurement would have been much higher not to mention that it would have set off a nuclear arms race as all nations with even the slightest hope of getting nukes would have diverted as many resources to doing so as they could and then some.
So the path to nuclear war would have been much wider – you have to understand that what you are proposing is to give nations a very strong incentive to annex territory from their weaker neighbors and only nukes could make a nation certain of its borders – the thing that held them back until now being the threat of sanctions and a likely visit from Uncle Sam.
Russia is NOT fighting Ukraine. It is fighting NATO/US and it is winning. Ukraine is the loser, with “help” from its supporters sending endless cash and arms to be destroyed along with called-up Uke men killed every day.
Fighting the USA/UK and Russia NATO will be toast when it is over, good riddance, it could have been easier, but we take what we can get.
Your problem is you can’t envision any solutions other than wars or sanctions.
You are right – can you propose a solution other than sanctions that does not provide a very serious incentive for other nations to copy the SMO and thereby improving the economic outlook for their nations?
Sure. This is an easy one.
The countries that have, by far, engaged in military operations against other countries are NATO countries and especially the USA. To alleviate the misery caused by these attacks on other nations, NATO should be immediately disbanded.
So a non solution to the problem – as the fact that NATO countries have been guilty in most of the wars in the last 70 odd years, merely reflects that they were d0minant – disbanding NATO will in no way prevent the US from gathering the coalition of the willing – so your prescription is a return to the period pre the Westphalian peace deal – i.e. endless wars.
Coalition of the Coerced is a more descriptive term. They are so wedded the US Dollar they see no way out of their predicament.
The French and English were not coerced into the action they wanted in Libya – and given that so many others were not joining the actions in Iraq it is difficult to maintain the idea that e.g. Denmark was coerced into taking part – what we had at the time was a government who were eager to participate.
Ah, so Danish, huh. What do the Danes spend on their military? Under 1.5% is my guess. Daddy USA will protect you from the big bad bear. How about you protect yourselves. No wonder you’re so pro NATO. National defense on the cheap.
It sounds like you are explaining why European countries are so happy about NATO and why NATO is a very good idea – is that really the argument you wanted to make?
Yes many European countries have been been spending less on military than we should – but you guys try to tell us that Russia was no threat and that we are provoking them – or are you also prepared to correct the people on here making that argument – which flies in the face of the argument you make here!?
Or perhaps this was just an other attempt at a childish insult that backfired spectacularly?
NATO is a good idea because the US taxpayers foot the bill? You just made my argument. Daddy pays the bills and protects little children that can’t take care of themselves.
Grow up.
NATO is a good idea because we all buy US weapons and the US gets to have a weapons industry that has advantages of scale that they would otherwise not have and thus be able to project power much further than would otherwise be the case – are you really this ignorant about the advantages of the NATO collaboration?
Maybe you are the one that have some growing up to do!
“project power much further” earth has no need for that power, leadership is what is needed.
We can agree on that, but I rather doubt that the US leadership agrees – so the point stands.
The coalition of Amerikkka’s bitches is more like it.
Childish insults
Gypsy33: absolutely true.
OK so you both acknowledge that on rational arguments you are beaten and have now retreated to childish insults – good to know!
U R completely delusional.
Well you are out of sane grown up arguments so… 🙂
Accurate insults, pal.
I am happy to note that your pal @sambor71:disqus manages to sink a lot of the arguments for NATO being unnecessary or provocative with these childish insults – so you just go ahead they only strengthens my case and weaken yours.
When one party in a debate has been reduced to insults then you know that this party has been beaten on the arguments. I don’t mind that people on the losing side throws insults at me – it only shows the paucity of their arguments.
We have endless wars now.
Your “dominant powers” argues for a multi polar world where no one country or gang of countries is dominant. So, you should support Putin who advocates for that.
Or are you saying the since the US is dominant, the US is naturally going to be in endless wars. Do you think that’s a viable option for Americans and the world?
Overthrowing a Russia friendly government on the border of Russia is beyond stupid. And the failure of neo con- neo liberal wars and the effect on the world is increasingly evident. Instead of reassessing its policies, the DC cretins doubled down! “We couldn’t win in Afghanistan, so let’s give world war 3 a whirl!
What you write is just: “Russia bad. Putin evil. Ukraine is a democracy. Defending democracy. Putin wants to conquer he world. ” Bla, bla, bla.
Tell you what. You use your own money to support Ukraine. I’m going to oppose supporting an oppressive and corrupt cats paw government.
No we only have the few wars that nations can finance and believe are worth the effort even when they know that they will not be able to get richer by annexing territory. If there was the added incentive of being able to annex territory there would be far more wars simply because far more wars would be ‘profitable’.
You misread me if you think that I’m arguing for ‘dominant powers’.
What I was stating is the dissolving NATO would end very few wars as NATO was only the instigator of one war (Kosovo) in all its time – all other wars were started by others (the US, UK, France,…) and only afterwards did NATO sometimes get to be the agency through which they tried to clean up the mess after the fact.
Which is likely why we did not do it in Ukraine.
Not entirely sure about the assignment of blame, but certainly we agree that even in the US they have come to realize that many/most of their invasions/actions in the middle east have been very expensive failures.
Did they though – no US units are fighting in Ukraine – and the failure they had in Afghanistan was that the Afghans were not willing to fight even with US support, while the Ukrainians proved that they were very willing to fight – even through a long period where they were much worse equipped than the Russians.
Did I though – I cannot see me arguing anywhere that we need to support Ukraine because ‘Ukraine is a democracy. Defending democracy.‘ if you can find a place where I have made that the basis for my argument then I’d be very surprised. I have actually previously argued that we would/should support them even if they were no better than the Taliban – simply because the consequences of allowing wars of territorial conquest are so bad.
As is our democratic right (at least mine – I do not know where you live).
Total garbage. The company line.
UN SC 1386. UN SC 1973.
Yeah, yeah I know NATO didn’t “instigate” . weasel words . Libya and Afghanistan.
The US “brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine” . Obama to CNN in an interview. One would have to be pretty obtuse to not understand what that means. Especially given Victoria Nuland’s three trips to Kiev over a couple of months just before the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian President.
Sure, she could have been baking cookies to give out. Azov loves cookies. Then here was that phone call picking the new regimes leader. BEFORE the coup. All just perfectly innocent.
Lots of money poured into Ukraine by the US before the coup. Seems it has never been properly accounted for. And all the military aid that rapidly found it’s way into Ukraine? That aid wasn’t earmarked for the previous government. My, my. The government was just soooo efficient. The regime was just darned lucky I guess.
Care to make a complete sentence?
Not weasel words neither Germany nor Turkey would agree to a NATO action in Libya – only once the shit had already hit the fan was NATO involved.
Yes like adhering to facts like no proven US involvement in the actual ousting of the sitting administration. The Victoria Nuland bit has been debunked repeatedly:
https://bitterwinter.org/myth-of-american-coups-in-ukraine-3-euromaidan/
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/euromaidan-was-a-coup-fomented-by-victoria-nuland/
Or she could have been doing the job she had.
Ukraine is a very corrupt country – the US and EU has donated funds many times (as has others) and yes some of those funds end up in the wrong hands – that is very normal for almost all foreign aid to most of the countries in the world receiving such aid – that is not proof that the donor nations are fermenting coups.
The references were UN Security Resolutions. Try using any search engine. Frankly, you don’t merit full sentences. You’re just a propagandist.
Why should I make arguments for you – referencing a security council resolution does not make an argument – the resolution in question actually makes my argument for me – ill try to demonstrate how to make an argument from a SC resolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973
As in this resolution clearly shows that NATO was not the instigator of the Libyan action – had NATO been then NATO member Germany would not have abstained – see – complete sentences directed towards establishing a point – not just random words for you to google and wonder what exactly I’m trying ‘say’.
See – this is how you make an argument.
NATO countries ASKED for the resolution . Guess you missed the obvious.
NATO countries are not NATO, but just countries that happen to also be in NATO – to illustrate just how weak your evidence is notice that these countries are also in UN so was it a UN action? So no I did not miss that obvious fact only I did not draw the equally obviously wrong conclusion.
Swing and a miss. The resolution specifically referred to NATO. Read the resolution.
Get your act together NATO is not mentioned even once in the UN document:
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement
Paragraph 6 thru 12 dummy. This is known as an empowering clause.
“As part of the 2011 military intervention in Libya, the United Nations Security Council approved a no-fly zone on 17 March 2011. The resolution includes provisions for further actions to prevent attacks on civilian targets. On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_71763.htm
NATO Secretary General’s statement on Libya no-fly zone
“NATO Allies have now decided to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya.
We are taking action as part of the broad international effort to protect civilians against the attacks by the Gaddafi regime. We will cooperate with our partners in the region and welcome their contributions.
All NATO Allies are committed to fulfill their obligations under the UN resolution. That is why we have decided to assume responsibility for the no-fly zone.
At this moment there will still be a coalition operation and a NATO operation but we are considering whether NATO should take on a broader responsibility in accordance with the UN Security Council resolution. But that decision has not been made yet.
Through the chain of command NATO and the Coalition will ensure close coordination and de-confliction.
Reporter: Mr. Secretary, there has been a lot of concern about civilian casualties and it’s been mentioned that … it was a particular concern to Turkey. Could you tell us about some of the deliberations you had in the Council?
NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen : No, we have had very very positive deliberations. It is of utmost importance to get this right. It’s a serious decision, and this is the reason why we have spent some time to reach this conclusion, but compared to the past we have actually done it quite quickly.
Associated Press: Secretary-General, has NATO agreed to take on the responsibilities in this No-Fly Zone, including on continuing the bombing campaign started by the international coalition?
NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen : What we have decided tonight is to take the responsibility for enforcing the No-Fly Zone with the aim to protect the civilian population, and the mandate doesn’t go beyond that, of course we can act in self-defence, but what we will do is to enforce the No-Fly Zone and ensure that we protect the civilian population.
Oana Lungescu (NATO Spokesperson): Thank you very much. Another one? One last question.
Reporter: Does that mean that if members of the so-called coalition, say France, would like to strike against troops of Ghadaffi’s moving in on civilian targets, that would be part of the mission that NATO overtakes at this moment?
NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen : At this moment, there will still be a coalition operation and a NATO operation. But we are considering whether NATO should take on that broader responsibility in accordance with the UN Security Council resolution, but that decision has not been made yet.
Reporter: How do you coordinate then between the coalition and NATO forces for the No-Fly Zone?
NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen : That would take place through the chain of command and we will ensure close coordination and deconfliction.
Oana Lungescu: And with that thank you very much and a very good night.
Now you are looking not at the UN security council resolution – so clearly your first mere mention of the SC resolution was quite insufficient to make the point.
The action that as your quote specifically states:
Started on March 19 – so it was first 5 says into this that NATO agreed to take control of an already ongoing action. As hinted with Germany not taking part and not voting for the resolution it neither was nor could it have been a NATO initiative – as to be so all the NATO partners have to agree to it.
NATO is an inter state organization and hence works on the basis of consensus – as in Finland and Sweden can only join if all members agree to this, much in the same way NATO can only start to enforce a no fly zone in Libya when all members agree to that- Germany clearly did not agree to this before March 23/24 so it was not a NATO initiated action, but one NATO first took responsibility for once it was already in motion.
For more on the German position and why this was not a NATO but a US/UK/France led action that the Arab league was actually asking them to enforce read this article.
https://www.grin.com/document/313297
For heavens sake, your splitting hairs. AGAIN. And your claim that NATO didn’t start it only NATO nations did is ridiculous. A distinction without a difference. Under your premise, if one NATO country objects then it isn’t NATO. ” To sit if, for example, if Slovakia wasn’t involved then it wasn’t NATO. “. C-R-A-Z-Y. ….. Heck, even Norway dropped 10% of the bombs on Libya
Yes it was NATO. Ian Martin was the UN’s on the spot point man: His book exposes the truth.
“Nato operations had increasingly extended from preventing attacks by Gaddafi’s forces to supporting rebel advances,” Martin writes. British attack helicopters were “pivotal”, he says, “in supporting the final assault on Tripoli” in August 2011. “. “NATO operations “. The U.N. knew it was NATO. So did everyone else.
“Martin appears particularly sceptical of Nato’s claim not to have realised it was tracking a convoy carrying Gaddafi the day he was killed in Sirte in October 2011. Martin notes, pointedly, that there were over 100 people watching the feed in Nato’s command bunker instead of the usual 30. Nato concluded its air war days later.
The long-term consequences of the Western alliance overstepping the UN mandate cannot be underestimated. Martin comments: “It is impossible to believe that there would have been the necessary votes in the Security Council, let alone the withholding of vetoes by Russia and China, if the full extent of the military campaign had been foreseen.”
Note: ” Nato’s command bunker. “. Not the coalition, not the British, not the French, not the Americans. N-A-T-O.
More. ” Ian Martin says Nato states’ deployments of special forces were “deliberately concealed” from the UN Security Council”
So, NATO exceeded it’s UN mandate under the resolutions and, like criminals do, hid their crimes.
Simply speaking, NATO ruined Libya. Wrecked the lives of millions, caused the deaths and injuries of thousands not innocent people.
NATO committed war crimes and crimes against humanity to regime change a country against the will of it’s population.
Slave markets in Libya? Thanks NATO.
For heavens sake, your splitting hairs. AGAIN. And your claim that NATO didn’t start it only NATO nations did is ridiculous. A distinction without a difference. Under your premise, if one NATO country objects then it isn’t NATO. ” To say if, for example, Slovakia wasn’t involved then it wasn’t NATO. “. C-R-A-Z-Y. ….. Heck, even Norway dropped 10% of the bombs on Libya
Yes it was NATO. Ian Martin was the UN’s on the spot point man: His book exposes the truth.
“Nato operations had increasingly extended from preventing attacks by Gaddafi’s forces to supporting rebel advances,” Martin writes. British attack helicopters were “pivotal”, he says, “in supporting the final assault on Tripoli” in August 2011. “. “NATO operations “. The U.N. knew it was NATO. So did everyone else.
“Martin appears particularly sceptical of Nato’s claim not to have realised it was tracking a convoy carrying Gaddafi the day he was killed in Sirte in October 2011. Martin notes, pointedly, that there were over 100 people watching the feed in Nato’s command bunker instead of the usual 30. Nato concluded its air war days later.
The long-term consequences of the Western alliance overstepping the UN mandate cannot be underestimated. Martin comments: “It is impossible to believe that there would have been the necessary votes in the Security Council, let alone the withholding of vetoes by Russia and China, if the full extent of the military campaign had been foreseen.
Note: ” Nato’s command bunker. “. Not the coalition, not the British, not the French, not the Americans. N-A-T-O.
More. ” Ian Martin says Nato states’ deployments of special forces were “deliberately concealed” from the UN Security Council”
So, NATO exceeded it’s UN mandate under the resolutions and, like criminals do, hid their crimes.
Simply speaking, NATO ruined Libya. Wrecked the lives of millions, caused the deaths and injuries of thousands of innocent people.
NATO committed war crimes and crimes against humanity to regime change a country against the will of it’s population.
Slave markets in Libya? Thanks NATO.
If that was the case I would agree, but the fact remains that this was an action only some NATO nations agreed upon, they planned it out amongst themselves not as a common NATO action, but a primarily US/UK/French action and only after they had started it without a NATO mandate did then 5 days after the start get NATO agreement to take over the responsibility for the parts of the action. There is a difference between NATO agreeing to take action and some NATO countries agreeing to do so.
That is because that is actually how a thing becomes the responsibility of an organization – i.e. all the countries in the action were UN members – that still did not make this a UN action – so in the same way as you cannot fault UN you also cannot fault NATO. the US/UK/France are quite capable of planning and executing an action without the consent or taking part of the rest of the NATO members.
It is a crime even to plan a war of aggression – were we to use your standard then any NATO nation could be convicted of this crime had the Libyan action been deemed a war of aggression – though e.g. Germany most certainly did not take part in the planning of the action.
Basically what you are arguing is collective guilt – i.e. that I should be considered guilty of crimes that e.g. my son or father commits – that is a principle we have dropped in most civilized societies.
I’m not contesting that NATO took part after the fact – just that it was not a NATO planned action.
See we very much agree on this – what we disagree about is the idea that all the NATO countries got together in the NATO framework and all agreed that NATO should start this action – when that was clearly no the case as e.g. Germany most certainly was not part of this.
I.e. this is not a case of me saying that NATO did not take part in the action, just that NATO did not start it and it was not with the backing of all NATO countries that it was planned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
As can clearly be seen this was an action initiated by a coalition of countries most of which were NATO members but Qatar was not – and it never became a pure NATO operation – that does not excuse NATO’s part in the operation!
You don’t even realize you undermine your own points over an over.
I truly do not, as I have just proven in that NATO was not the instigator of the Libyan action – not to mention that your original comment did not constitute an argument at all and did not include NATO even with a single mention in the original UN SC resolution. So just what world are you living in where this is undermines my points???
Because all three involved in the illegal bombing are NATO members but not the NATO alliance, and the alliance was not involved. It was not sanctioned by NATO.
Only the three nuclear NATO powers and little Portugal supported the resolution but the five big members abstained. It was a political power play.
The NATO alliance was not involved.
NATO Secretary General’s press conference.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_71763.htm
How wasn’t NATO involved? See also Ian Martin. He was the U.N. point person for the Libyan regime change operation.
Germany would have abstained because it is against its constitution, it was not a defensive action, it was a civil war and illegal for NATO to bomb Libya, a war crime.
But laws are only for others.
Incidence like that have undermined any confidence in the UN.
As Germany did abstain and as it was not part of the planning process, it was not a NATO instigated action but one that was very much planned and started by the coalition first and then only later parts of it was taken over by NATO.
Good that we could finally agree on that – I agree with you that it was a civil war and thus it should not have been allowed by the UN for others to intervene – and that this undermined confidence in the UN.
NATO was never involved in a NATO war of aggression, it was always individual NATO member states, as was the case in Libya, NATO states UK/France and USA but NOT the NATO alliance was involved, the same is true for Iraq and Afghanistan. And it will be true in the case of Ukraine. No NATO member was attacked, it is not a NATO conflict, but Biden is moving heaven and earth yo make it one.
Libya was an official action (Operation Unified Protector) of NATO itself.
They were the three nuclear NATO powers flying bombing missions but not in any official NATO capacity. No NATO member was attacked, it was more old time colonial interests and an illegal act of war, ultra Sunni Muslims savagely killed Gadhafi and destroyed the Libyan country and society, to this day it is still a failed state, the country had the highest standard of living in N. Africa under Gadhafi. It was as secular a state as a Muslim society could be, like Syria, Iran and Iraq compared to the Saudis.
EXPLICITLY “in a NATO capacity,” as it was a NATO-planned, NATO-endorsed, and NATO-ordered mission.
It broke the charter of the NATO alliance, which is limited to DEFEND NATO members, if anything it was an illegal bombing attack on the Libyan army and nation. Nothing new about that, NATO is being used to attack other nations in ANGLO-SAXON interests. Three NATO powers asked for the blessings of the UN to attack Libya and the anything but neutral UN with some arm-twisting of smaller nations provided it.
The USA, France, and UK had conflicts of interests and should have abstained from voting in the UN in the first place. We are faced with deliberate political obfuscation by morally bankrupt people.
So far every case in which some NATO members were involved was in wars of aggression, war crimes based on INTERNATIONAL law. The UN has been denigrated and has become a tool to justify illegal wars in the interests of the USA. The UN has become useless.
“It broke the charter of the NATO alliance”
So?
The fact that robbing a bank is against the law is not a defense to charges that one robbed a bank.
Libya was an open, public, avowed, official NATO operation. That’s just a fact of reality.
The only NATO members involved were UK/USA, and France. All else is political farce, pretense to make it look legal. Take it or leave it. It was typical power politics.
I’m fairly sure that the intervention in Kosovo was NATO planned from the outset so I do not believe that you are correct – but I would be very happy if it was otherwise.
I am sure behind closed doors it was planed, but it was not a legal NATO bombing mission. It was a civil war rooted in ancient history and NATO bombed Serbia to settle the conflict. Again NATO used illegal military force.
No Operation Allied Force was a NATO planned response to the problems in Kosovo – it was as you point out a civil war that NATO interfered in, but it was not done (only) behind closed doors – it was very much a public response by NATO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Background
All it takes is to name it legal, that makes it legal if the USA says so. A terrorist is a terrorist if that is what they say he/she is, it is a terrorist state if they declare it is.
Bit of a non-sequitur – I did not speak to the legality of any of these actions – one way or the other. All I said was that the operation against Serbia was a NATO planned action.
Yeah, I know. Rules Based Order.
Not specially linked to rules as such – but everything to do with incentives.
Restore the legal government of Ukraine elected by all of the people of the then-Ukraine.
Only if they vote for it – anything else would be very problematic – as in you would allow Putin to overthrow an elected government for one that was elected many years ago and one that might not have any mandate at all.
as in the West, specifically the US, overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. Now your favorite dictatorial regime allows no independent political opposition or media. That’s why it makes no difference. How did we ever ever ever survive when the old Soviet Union controlled all of Eastern Europe?
In Ukraine some parties have been outlawed – that happened after the invasion, as t happened in the UK after the war with Germany broke out – so this is quite normal for a country at war. US did not overthrow the Ukrainian government in 2014 – it is a myth and has been debunked repeatedly – if you have the documents to prove it feel free to link them.
Ask the former Soviet republics and the people living under Soviet oppression – ask the people who were killed in Hungary in 1956, ask the people killed in Czechoslovakia in 1968 – ask the people of East Germany living as spies on their kin.
Yes to be sure we had a right jolly old time back then! (and that last sentence was sarcasm just in case you could not see it!)
Not “some” – all political parties, except the ruling regime’s political party. If you are demanding documents, follow your own example and produce blank posts with all your documents.
Ask Lincoln why he killed so many of his own people. That’s as relevent as you going back to nations that no longer exist like the Soviet Union or East Germany.
In the meantime you should concern yourself with actions we’ve taken, like all the killing in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria, , Serbia and Afghanistan. I know that you are such a humanitarian that you condemned all of those (at the time and later) and have called for an International War Crimes Tribunal to bring those responsible to justice. No statute of limitations on war crfimes, bud. Go ask the relatives of those slain what they think of our history dealing with those nations. And please don’t come with the no-brainer of “We had to destroy them in order to save them.”
Just some parties there is a very long list of parties in Ukraine which are not banned and 11 banned parties – these parties are only banned for the duration of the conflict – i.e. not forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Ukraine#Banned_parties
So no Zelenskyy did not ban all parties but his own and he did exactly the same as the British did during WWII i.e. end the operation of parties that had stood for a policy of ‘collaboration’ with a country that they were then at war with.
You specifically made this relevant by asking:
And to make it even more relevant the way most people see this SMO in Europe is that Putin is indeed serious when he talks about reestablishing the Russian empire – and we do not see the Russian empire as distinct from the Soviet Empire as it is not as distant in time from us as Lincoln – so very much relevant when the question is how would we ever survive when the old Soviet Union…
Quite apart from this being pure whataboutism, I can state that I have argued against these actions and I agree that war crimes were indeed committed and should be processed.
Why would I even try to justify wrong policies that as you point out has likely driven most of the people away from us – I think you believe that you are debating a person who is for the US led wars over the last 30 odd years – that is not the case.
“no US troops are fighting in Ukraine” how quaint …
Any US agents providing target Intel to Ukraine forces are “in the war”, whether they are in Kiev, or Las Vegas. Likewise, all units providing security for those agents, are also “in the war”
All US agents and their security whom are transporting war goods in the Ukraine, are also “in the war”. By agents, I mean anyone being paid by the US, military or not.
That however is still very far from what the US did in Afghanistan and thus not an argument that the US cant win in Ukraine as they couldn’t win in Afghanistan. So you kind of missed the point of the original comment and my reply.
Again not an argument that the US will be unable to win since they were unable to win in Afghanistan – the two actions are very different seen from US perspective.
Just so we agree there is not a state of war (at least not yet) between the US forces involved in these operations and thus though Russia is a much more formidable power than the Taliban, they have not yet inflicted war casualties on the US servicemen.
I do not have a problem agreeing that these US forces are operating a service that could be regarded as taking part in the war, like they did in WWII supplying the English in their fight against Nazi Germany – but just like in 1940 there still is not a declared war.
Moreover the US lost in Afghanistan seeing as they could not motivate the Afghans to fight for what the US wanted them to have – the US does not have that problem in Ukraine, seeing as they did not have to motivate the Ukrainians to fight – all they had to do was to supply them with weapons so they could believe that they had a fighting chance.
I don’t think NATO will survive this inferno, problem solved, I hope.
“copy the SMO” … you keep saying that. Noone needed the Russian SMO to copy, US foreign policy has more than enough to go around.
And the US’ “SMO’s” went unpunished so other countries would certainly want to copy the US version.
Unless we do an “about face”, the mongers will still be the majority (sadly).
As just pointed out the war mongers (by which I guess you mean the MIC) would hope for a Russian victory – that is the way to make the most money.
Then they’d have to create other enemies, like Noriega, Milosevic, Xi, terrorists, etc.
That will only provide them with the meager funds the US will throw at them – that is a very pathetic replacement for a world wide arms race.
It kept it going after we defeated the Soviets with “the enemy of the year” games.
Sure but that is not what is debated here – what is debated is if the MIC has an incentive to be hawkish on the SMO – or whether they would make much more money on Russia winning – I say they would make more money on a Russian victory especially if that is not sanctioned until it has proven a Pyrrhic victory.
Now you are admitting this to be the case but forwarding that they would still survive on the much more meager funds that the US would still provide – on that we agree – but it does not change the point I made i.e. that the MIC would make much more money from a Russian victory without western sanctions.
Your logic is really strange. Russia must win if for no other reason than to save Europe, the whole continent, not just Ukraine. The senile Biden and his lunatics declared war on Germany when they blew up the pipelines. That is war on the EU and NATO.
You appear to have no understanding of what a Russian victory would mean – listen to the speech of the Kenyan Ambassador to the UN – it is pretty clear that if wars of territorial conquest are not sanctioned then there will be very many nations in the world with birder issues to be corrected.
Thus the path you recommend is a path to loads of copy cat SMO’s i a lot of nations across the globe.
Add to this that very few in EU would want to be saved by Putin – so should Biden decide to abandon NATO we would still fight the Russians – it would be a much longer and bloodier fight, but we would most likely be able to keep the Russians from saving us – and just to be certain – no we would not invade Russia – but we would not trade with them before they had changed their ways (i.e. ended the desire to save us from X, Y, Z).
You should listen to some of Putin’s speeches, they are historical speeches. They take a little more than 3 minutes to be sure.
What makes you think I have not – either I take away a very different message from them than you or we are not hearing the same speeches – so if there are some that you find particularly good feel free to link them (and even better cut and paste the parts of them you find particularly good/convincing).
The speeches are readily available if you want to hear or read them. You say you know them and you took away a different message than I did. There is nothing I could add.
As stated I have already read most of them – I did not find them a source for comfort or reassurance – I may not be hearing/reading the same thing into what he says as you do – which is why I asked you to be specific – as in reference the speech and put the parts you found convincing.
Otherwise all we can get to is that you find him convincing I do not.
Since you would fight the Russians without the USA, why don’t you do just that.
Now if you can convince the US to give up on US national interests, then we might just have to – do you think you can manage that?
If you could only convince the Russian people to give up on their national interests than you would not have to fight at all.
I do not have to, the Ukrainians are doing this, but to be sure they alone would be unlikely to achieve this goal, so the sanctions are going to do the rest – you see most polls taken before the invasion had very few people quoting attacking Ukraine as a vital goal or national interest.
So when the Russians start hurting very badly then they will not be happy that they have to do so for Putin’s vanity project – they had lived for 20+ years without Crimea and for 30+ years without the newly annexed territories – it is going to be hard to explain them why having these territories are now a matter of life or death.
They don’t sound all that different.
Blake Masters:
Should the military be allowed to use enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, to gain information from suspected terrorists?
Yes
Do you support the killing of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani?
Yes
Should the government increase or decrease military spending?
Increase
Should the military fly drones over foreign countries to gain intelligence and kill suspected terrorists?
Yes
Should the US assassinate suspected terrorists in foreign countries?
Yes
Blake feels strongly both ways on NATO I guess.
Should the U.S. remain in NATO?
Yes, but NATO should focus more on counter-terrorism strategies
Should the U.S. defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets relative to their GDP?
No, and we should withdraw from NATO
JD Vance:
Should the U.S. formally declare war on ISIS?
Yes
Should the military be allowed to use enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, to gain information from suspected terrorists?
Yes, but only as a last resort.
Do you support the killing of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani?
Yes
Should the government increase or decrease military spending?
Increase
Should the U.S. send ground troops into Syria to fight ISIS?
No, conduct targeted airstrikes instead
Should the U.S. provide military assistance to defend Ukraine from Russia?
Yes, the Russian invasion of the Ukraine threatens the balance of power in the region
Should Ukraine join NATO?
Yes
Don Boldac on Afghanistan:
“I’m going to be bold here and I am going to recommend that’s what we need to do,” Bolduc said of going back into Afghanistan. “…. This is a huge national national security issue for the homeland. … And what we need to do is — I’m sorry, it’s the last thing I wanted to recommend — but doing careful thought, we need to go back. We need to do it the right way. And there are people that know how to do it.”
mindboggling.
All same.
Just save a lots of miney and pick people for offices from Social Secutlrity data base. A lottery.
No laws longer
than 1 page, otherwise, write another law.
No corporate visitors.
Bursucracy should explain each law before vote in a public session with Q&A.
Etc etc etc.
This entrenched system is hopelessly mired in special interest poltics, and the country has become a milking cow for all kinds of etnic-centered interests. Many have forgotten which country they work for.
Thanks for this!
Bottom line is that there is not a dimes worth of difference between the war mongers in the dimos and the Gopers.
The business of the empire, i.e. america is war-if these clowns attempting to get”selected” advocated anything remotely different, they would not even be allowed on stage to spew the war mongering mantra.
Groomed from an early age by the shot callers.
That is not going to happen, MIC took care of 30 “progressives” and a very meek negotiating suggestion with less than 24 hrs.
Republicans will stand firmly behind more war supported by big money.
Unfortunately true. Although there are a few in the GOP that see the futility of US foreign policy, the majority of the GOP is like the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil monkey.
Vance is a Trump bootlicker, an election denier, an Orbán fanboy and a hardliner on abortion.
Anyone who thinks he represents a fine future senator probably also thinks Herschel Walker is an intellectual giant.
“J.D. is kissing my ass he wants my support so bad,” Trump said.
And, like Lindsey Graham, he detested Trump at first. But you can’t get anywhere in the GOP nowadays without orange nosing.
You can’t avoid conviction on idiotic impeachment proceedings without kissing the ass of those warmongers.
You seem confused. Vance wasn’t in the Senate then, and Graham started kissing Trump’s ass before he was elected, which was certainly long before he was impeached.
What will they do when the Ukraine loses?
Keep sanctions on – that will eventually throttle the Russian economy so much that no other nation will want to do their own SMO to annex territory from any of their neighbors.
You seem to be missing the fact that sanctions are wrecking the EU, not Russia.
Sanctions are not wrecking EU – and Russia is the one that insists that lifting sanctions be the part of any negotiations – so fairly sure that they are experiencing problems. Further evidence that sanctions are having an effect on Russia’s ability to project power:
1) Fielding very old equipment in Ukraine (guns designed in 1943, tanks first fielded in 1961)
2) Importing (or copying) Iranian suicide drones
3) ‘Importing’ equipment from Belarus
4) Bringing home equipment from Syria
Evidence for EU economy being wrecked by the sanctions so far mostly speculative:
E.g. certain chemical companies moving production out of EU – but this is at least as much caused by the CO2 policies in EU as even without the energy price hikes caused by the SMO production in EU made less and less sense – so EU could avoid this if they wanted as in they could lower the energy taxes – but they do not.
Do you get paid for this propaganda ?
No, you’d probably be surprised by the number of people willing to spend quite a bit of time arguing against what they see as very bad for the world – you may have noticed that only 4 countries side with Russia as U.N. rejected its annexations in Ukraine.
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/13/1128642820/un-rejects-russian-annexations-ukraine
General Assembly is toothless.
Doesn’t matter, what matters here is that Putin can’t get even his close ‘allies’ to support his actions showing just how poorly his actions are received across the world.
Across what world. His close allies didn’t vote against him either.
So not voting against Putin is now a victory??? Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan – these close ‘allies’ of Russia, it is a victory that they did not vote against Russia!? I think we are lowering the bar here!
Well, if you want to use the toothless UN General Assembly now as the High Court, I guess we should lift all sanctions and the blockade on Cuba, because you put so much stock in that assembly? Along with that, get the hell out of Cuba at Guantanamo to show you’re not a hypocrite on the Russian Naval Base in Crimea.
3 Nov, 2022 22:16
HomeWorld News
Only one country backs US in UN Cuba vote
Israel was Washington’s only supporter in 30th vote in 30 years denouncing the blockade of Cuba
Here’s another one I know you will abide by with your support:
UN votes 152 to 5 telling Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons – November 03, 2022
I have not indicated that I want to use it as anything other than a gauge on the world support for Russia’s actions?
But I most certainly would not support the Cuban sanctions, and I would also support a resolution for the US to leave Guantanamo – while I would have recommended that Ukrainians allowed a Russian base in Sebastopol – but seeing as they used that base as staging ground of the annexation of Crimea I no longer think that should do so.
The free and fair election of the Russian speaking people of Crimea was “the staging ground”.
These free and fair elections were held at what point in time? Pre or post Russian forces taking control of the area where the elections were held?
“toothless” , not legally. The US senate is responsible for the US to comply with UN law. That they don’t, is the toothless part.
“The US State Department revealed that the G7 ministers will discuss a range of pressing global challenges, including the G7’s sustained support for a democratic, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine.”
So all will be well then. Poor Russia!!!
Good.. we can ship these loyal supporters over to Ukraine.
I’m sure Russia would be happy to have YOU. They tried to draft a guy in a wheelchair so I’m sure you’d pass muster.
I bet I would ! Thanks for the vote of confidence !
“In Kyiv, US Senators Vow Bipartisan Support for Ukraine After Midterms Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Coons (D-DE) made the trip”
Kleptocrat politicians from both parties vow to bankrupt America to give Zelensky a massive windfall.
Hyper inflation is just around the corner along with war, famine, and pestilence.
Term limits for the warmongers.
In other word, continue wasting tax payers’ money, without end.
https://russian.rt.com/ussr/article/1069910-rossiya-voennye-osvobozhdenie-plen-ukraina
“They beat me constantly”: the released Russian military spoke about the conditions of detention in Ukrainian captivity
This gives the Russia’s military considerable motivation when the second phase escalates. Either the International Red Cross and the UN weren’t allowed into Ukraine or they didn’t request access to Ukraine’s prison camps.
Or they requested access to Ukraine’s prison camps, where they saw what the Ukrainian regime wanted to see.
As for former POWs’ (from any side in any war) claims, they should always be treated as suspect, especially before the war ends. All regimes (including that of the US) use former POWs to portray “the enemy” as savage barbarians. “The enemy” may, in fact, be savage barbarians, of course, but never forget that all sides propagandize.
Governments, including “ours” excel at sleight of hanð.
I speak with friends in Moscow and St Patersburg weekly. Returning POW to Russia who were held in Ukraine tell horror stories.
Some of the first POWs from March were blinded by their Ukrainian captors.
The fact that we’ve seen recent prisoner releases could mean Kiev “seriously” desires to negotiate the war’s end.
What’s conspicuous from Washington or Kiev’s master, is no semblance of a public statment forthcoming that considers peace overtures.
With that said, Democrats shouldn’t be surprised President Bleep has dampened their political fortunes on one issue alone.
That is beyond horrific.
https://www.rt.com/russia/565933-russian-soldiers-prison-stories/
Freed Russian soldiers recount horrors of captivity in Ukraine (VIDEO)
Ukrainian guards tortured prisoners and forced them to lie for propaganda purposes,
Guessing you don’t care too much about these atrocities, though, all recounted in intercepted calls from Russian solders:
And …
And …
https://apnews.com/article/bucha-ukraine-war-cleansing-investigation-43e5a9538e9ba68a035756b05028b8b4
….but did they throw the newborns out of the incubators onto the cold hard floor, and steal the incubators (because their wives back home were pregnant)?
Stick your fingers in your ears and sing, “la la la la la I can’t hear” you a little louder. It’ll work one of these days!
“We have been able to visit hundreds of POWs on both sides,” ICRC spokesman Ewan Watson said, “but there are thousands more who we have not been able to see.” (The article is specifically about Russia refusing to grant access to Olenivka.)
“In Kyiv, US Senators Vow Bipartisan Support for Ukraine After Midterms Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Coons (D-DE) made the trip”
This is why I refuse to vote in up coming midterm elections net week. There is no candidate or party that I can support or vote for. Both Democrats and Republicans are drunk on power and inhaling taxpayer funds through kickbacks to their PACs and campaign contributions from whoever they give taxpayer funds to.
“In a kleptocracy, corrupt politicians enrich themselves secretly outside the rule of law, through kickbacks, bribes, and special favors, or they simply direct
state funds to themselves and their associates. Also, kleptocrats often
export much of their profits to foreign nations in anticipation of
losing power.”
Russian state media alleges atrocities against Russians: totally believable.
Literally anyone else alleges atrocities against Ukrainians: “WESTERN PROPAGANDA!!1!”
To be clear, I condemn any of these actions by either side. But unlike CT, I acknowledge that the Russians do awful things too.
“Survivors say they were beaten, waterboarded, shocked and raped with electric rods. They report having their teeth and nails removed, being buried alive for hours and facing mock games of Russian roulette and executions.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/27/ukrainian-servicewomen-recall-harrowing-captivity
Here is a story in Jimmy Finkelstein’s The Hill by an ex-CIA operative, Marc Polymeropoulos.
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3716092-bidens-dancing-through-the-raindrops-approach-to-ukraine/
He claims that the warnings about Ukraine using a dirty bomb was false. Even though that warning from Russia led to the UK foreign minister immediately being called to the White House, then flown back again quickly, probably to give the Ukies stern orders.
He claims, of course, that Republicans warning against funding Ukraine’s war are doing Russia’s bidding. Because Russia is constantly manipulating Congress, he says.
And aside from Rebublicans “getting wobly” on the war aims, he complains that Democrats wrote a letter calling for diplomatic channels to be open. It was retracted, “BUT THE DAMAGE WAS DONE!” (The damage.) They “played right into Putin’s hands.”
Marc Poly is a constant media commentator at CNN, WaPo, etc. He is a member of the globalist CIA ally The Atlantic Council. It’s list of donors is like a globalist horror show, including UKRAINE, Lebanon, the UAE, Goldman Sachs, Mark Zuckerberg, and the British government. The Atlantic Council, and people like Marc Poly, should be registered as foreign agents.
Furthermore, the Atlantic Council’s Marc Poly writes this amazing propaganda:
Can you tell who the Atlantic Council’s donors are?
Jon
That remark about IsraHell is piss-yourself hysterical 😆
The Russian MOD is disarming NATO, tank by tank, artillery by artillery, air defense by air defense. What they loose in the Ukraine, they loose for the final global war.
Russia is inflicting a 10:1 kill ratio. And NATO overall has the following equipment losses;
330 Aircraft, 168 helicopters, 2426 UAV’s, 384 Anti Aircraft systems, 6322 tanks inc. APC’s, 882 multiple rocket launchers, 3551 rocket launchers and 7027 military automotive equipment.
Well