A US official has denied that the Biden administration is nudging Ukraine toward negotiations with Russia, saying it’s up to Kyiv when to seek peace talks.
The comments from James O’Brien, assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian affairs, came in response to a report from the German tabloid Bild. The report said the US and Germany were trying to nudge Ukraine toward the negotiating table by providing just enough weapons to maintain the current battle lines.
“The Bild story I thought was intriguing, but no, there’s no US policy,” O’Brien said. “We’ve always said that this is a matter for Ukraine to decide. We decide nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. And I think the other reality here is we see no indication that Russia is willing to entertain substantive, real peace negotiations.”
According to Ukrainska Pravda, Germany also denied the Bild report. “Ukraine has to define military and political goals in its defensive fight against the Russian aggression. Only Ukraine can set a date of the start of peace talks,” the German government said.
The US and most of its NATO allies have discouraged peace talks throughout the war and actively worked against short-lived negotiations in the early days of the conflict. David Arakhamia, a member of Ukraine’s parliament who led the Ukrainian delegation to Istanbul during peace talks with Russia in March 2022, confirmed last week that Russia only wanted a commitment of Ukrainian neutrality to end the war at the time.
Arakhamia also confirmed earlier reporting from Ukrainska Pravda that then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told President Volodymyr Zelensky that even if Kyiv was ready to sign a deal with Moscow, Ukraine’s Western backers were not. “When we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight,” he said.
The best way to be “antiwar”,,,is to take away the main weapon from them that they use to create wars,,,”psychological warfare”,,and their biggest weapon they have for that is “nuclear weapons”,,,,,nuclear weapons do not exist,,,,they tried,,they failed,,they faked it,,,but the result was the same “FEAR”,,,enough fear that they can get the people to go and kill and be killed over the fear of being killed by a weapon that does not exist,,,,,
,,learn the truth,,,then there will be no more wars,,,
The best way to be anti-war is to stop overbreeding and overconsuming. Wars are fought for resources, and overpopulation gives the ruling class the cannon fodder it needs.
No,,,”All Wars Are Banker Wars”,,,,,,look up the title and read the article,,,,,do you know what the most valuable resource on Earth is,,,,??
No, wars existed long before bankers.
You need to read the article,,,,,yes I know the title is not good for getting people to read it,,since you,, just like I did “assume” you know what it is all about,,,but after I finally read it the title fits perfectly,,,,it is the best “real” history lesson you can get,,,,,,
https://ia800203.us.archive.org/14/items/AllWarsAreBankersWars_201601/All%20Wars%20are%20Bankers%20Wars.pdf
I perused the article, it is exactly what I thought it was. You need to reread what I wrote. Again, civilization itself causes wars, and they’ve been around for thousands of years, well before banks or bankers.
And BTW, you don’t have to try to convince me that banks and bankers are evil. I’ll see that and raise you that money itself is evil and should be eliminated, and I don’t just mean cash or credits. Bartering was just fine until people got greedy.
Well, I guess getting rid of money and going back to barter would help with the “over-population” thing. But mass starvation seems like a poor way to go about that.
Why do you assume that returning to bartering would cause mass starvation? People could trade their work for things like food. There are no limits to what can be bartered, it just prevents hoarding of wealth, or at least makes doing so much harder.
I have 50 pounds of rice. I want a basketball, a spool of thread, a pack of cigarettes, and three ribeye steaks. You have a spool of thread, but no basketball, cigarettes, or steaks. And you don’t want a fraction of the rice I have, you want a hula hoop. But the guy who has a hula hoop wants shaving cream and a flashlight.
Without a medium of exchange, we’re all spending a crap ton of time running around trying to find people who will take what we’re offering for the things we want. Every bit of time and work we spend on that, we can’t be spending on actual productive work. We are, therefore, all poorer than we would have been if there was a medium of exchange we all accepted.
The best medium of exchange is something that’s valuable to lots of people, valuable in fairly small quantities, and can be very accurately measured for both quantity and quality. Gold and silver both work for that, as do other things, especially if we’re able to just use pieces of paper good for a given quantity of whatever it is. It could be Light Brent Crude or yards of calico cloth or whatever. “The bearer of this note is entitled to one liter of 93 octane gasoline,” etc.
Fiat currencies (currencies which are not verifiably backed by anything of value and are just mandatorily treated as “money” by government order), not so good. Money does not require a government. But it does require either trust or verifiability or some proportion of both.
Not interested in productive work and I totally oppose the Protestant work ethic. Humans should be focused on expanding our consciousness, empathy, and wisdom, not on working all the time and consuming all this crap. Materialism and overconsumption are much bigger problems than the ones you list. What you’re concerned about is maintaining this environmentally destructive society, while I want to tear it down.
Humans can’t be focused on expanding their consciousness, empathy, and wisdom if they’re spending 18 hours a day instead of 30 minutes a day getting food to eat because the guy with an apple wants a hula hoop and all the hungry person has is a pair of gloves.
I’m obviously talking about long-term, big changes. One of those changes is that we live a lot more naturally & simply. Your scenario is of a society that grossly overconsumes, so that people supposedly have to navigate through all these choices. If you don’t have all that needless stuff, you don’t have the problem of finding someone with whom to trade.
People used bartering quite successfully for a long time. The only reason they changed the system to money was to accumulate wealth, which is not a legitimate goal.
There are two lifestyle choices:
1) Nasty, brutish, and short; or
2) Figuring out ways to efficiently exchange the labor in which one has competitive advantage for the things produced by others who have competitive advantage in creating those other things.
Your use of a computer to post commentary to a web site seems to conflict with any commitment to avoiding “needless stuff” yourself. Is that recommendation just meant for other people?
I don’t normally respond to personal attacks, but I’ll make one exception here. I need my computer for my work. If I didn’t I wouldn’t have it. I resisted getting one until I had to. But again, I’m talking long-term changes here, not anything that can be accomplished now or even soon. I have no kids, I gave up my car 24 years ago, I buy almost nothing but food. All I expect is that people do what they can, even if it’s only making incremental changes. What I don’t tolerate is making excuses for harmful behavior.
As to your basic premise, that’s either totally ignorant or totally ethnocentric (I have no idea what you know about natural societies, but I suspect little or nothing). Hunter-gatherers are not nasty or brutish, and many if not most of them are far more mentally and spiritually advanced than everyone else, including modern humans. If you don’t believe me, I challenge you to explain or even understand their mythologies, like the dream time from Australia or the Spider Grandmother from the Hopi. You look at people who live very differently than you and have a very negative opinion of them and their lifestyle, and it translates into calling them names like nasty and brutish, but that’s simply not true.
As to how long people live, sure, modern humans live longer because of the unnatural overabundance of food. But in order to get that, we’re wrecking the planet and killing all the life here. Infinitely better to focus on the quality of our lives instead of how long we live. We all live one lifetime, work with that!
“I don’t normally respond to personal attacks”
Nor are you now.
Yes I agree with all of that,,,but it has always been the leaders of those civilizations that create the wars,,,,today those leaders are the ones that control the central banks of the world,,,their control goes far beyond control of the currency,,,they control the corporations and the governments,,,
Bankers are part of the ruling class, but they’re far from the only problem. It’s the entire system that’s the problem, along with people’s greed and materialistic attitudes.
As much as I agree that overpopulation and overconsumption are problems, it’s not what drives wars. It’s psychopathy and greed. Even when there are abundant resources, we allow some to take all of it. An older chart, (which I’m certain the slices left for the masses are even worse now):
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e79587051a65c759da78c28f1aa64ed5e184a97880e8e8f412df6f2cecd02844.jpg
“Overpopulation” is built on partial truths that nurture our innate feeling of guilt just for existing and consuming, going back all the way to the “original biblical sin.” It’s been very effective in producing war. Academia has been essential as part of the MICIMATT: Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank. –Ray McGovern everyday, every year, and every minute of every time in how we end up in WAR. Please don’t get me started. LOL. Love you, ED.
You have to be a human supremacist (anthropocentric) to deny that humans are grossly overpopulated. In an oversimplified nutshell, there are so many people that other species have nowhere to live. Specifically, humans, their agriculture, and their infrastructure occupy more than half of the terrestrial (dry) land on Earth. Considering that humans live in a manner that excludes most other species, especially larger animals, that’s far too much for one species. Furthermore, relevant scientists (wildlife biologists, etc.) say that human overpopulation is one of the main causes of the current extinction crisis (I would say that it’s the No. 1 cause).
Thanks for your response. I respectfully disagree. I invite you to look at it again with a more critical eye and evaluate it as a potential ideology/propaganda from the 18th century. Generally speaking, “overpopulation” is self correcting. China is a good example. Remember: You’re my buddy and I agree with you on many topics. Here’s some information to get you started: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust
I’m first and foremost a radical environmentalist (Earth First!, Rewilding Institute, etc.). With that for context, let me explain further, though I really don’t think that this is the appropriate forum for this and we should instead be doing this in an environmental forum, by email, or over the phone.
When humans began moving out of Africa 60-90,000 years ago, they caused extinctions wherever they went. Extinctions are EXTREME events when they happen unnaturally, as when humans cause them, so this indicated that humans were a big problem that long ago. Just imagine what you’d think of another animal that killed all the humans on Earth.
Humans eventually stopped causing extinctions and learned to live properly with the other species until about 10,000 years ago, when they started killing native plants to plant crops, aka agriculture. Any and all killing except to eat what you kill is wrong, so killing these native plants was totally immoral, in addition to being very ecologically harmful. Killing native plants also deprives native animals of them.
Humans had been around for 190,000 years before they started using agriculture, meaning that we lived as hunter-gatherers for 95% of our existence. By that time, the human population had reached its natural ecological equilibrium at 5-10 million people on the entire planet. There are approximately 800-1,600 times more people than that now. Anything above that is unnatural, and throws ecosystems out of balance by forcing other species out. This is even more true when people live as agriculturalists instead of hunter-gatherers, because agriculturalists take up more land. Add industrial living to all that harm, and it’s objectively quite clear that humans are grossly overpopulated and occupy far too much land for one species.
I will add that there are many places on this planet where humans don’t even belong. We are tropical animals and should have stayed there. The places where humans don’t belong the most are those that are farthest from the tropics. Humans couldn’t even get to Antarctica without unnatural industrial means to do so, and those there are causing ecological harm by their mere presence. I don’t think that humans should have ever come to the Americas either; even the first people here, the traditional indigenous hunter-gatherers, caused extinctions when they got here, a very human thing to do apparently.
As to the column to which you linked: The human race fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the planet. That’s a provable fact, not a mere opinion, as explained to me by a medical doctor. It doesn’t have to be that way, but as long as humans choose to live unnaturally and grossly overpopulate, it won’t change. The column to which you linked is just more human supremacist drivel. Try looking at this from a nonhuman perspective, like that of the trees/forests, or wolves, or bison & native grasses. If you think that no one beside humans matters, or even that humans mater more than everyone else, then you reach the conclusions that you do. Human supremacism is the worst supremacism in that it is destroying the planet and all the life here.
As I said, living as a cancerous tumor on the planet is a choice; it doesn’t have to be this way. Traditional indigenous people and ascetic monks are very good examples of how we can live properly and be a shining light instead of a cancerous tumor. See my book outline here for details about how we should be living as opposed to how we have been for the last 10,000 years: https://rewilding.org/fixing-humans-by-expanding-our-consciousness/. And please respond to my points, don’t just throw some essay in front of me with which I strongly disagree with its basic premise, in addition to its false facts (Malthus didn’t know or care anything about the natural environment, so his comments about overpopulation are irrelevant here, to list just one example).
See this entertaining short interviewing US passersby in a mall with a real pie, asked to divide the pie by their understanding of wealth distribution…
“American Wealth Inequality Expressed As A Pie”
That’s provably false. War has existed ever since civilization, which was created by overpopulation. When people live too densely, they can’t live on the local resources, so they have to make war to steal other people’s resources. Derrick Jensen has done excellent work on this subject, I suggest reading some or at least one of his books regarding this.
Your pie chart is totally irrelevant and is a distraction regarding this issue. I fully agree that Americans and other wealthy people consume far too much, but that can’t be said for people living thousands of years ago, yet they still had wars. How would you explain that?
Greed
It wasn’t greed, it was wrongful living. People overpopulated because it was caused by agriculture replacing hunting & gathering. As I said, once people became overpopulated, they couldn’t live on the local resources, so they had to make war on neighboring communities to steal their resources. Greed is certainly a problem — screw Reagan!!! — but it’s not the historical or fundamental cause of this problem.
We may have judged that Russia has been bled enough. A regime collapse would be messy and fraught. Russia has been shorn of its best tanks and much of its air defense so enough is enough.
Total non sense.
They have suffered no losses? They just decided for themsleves that Kalingrad no longer needs air defense sysgtems? Well OK that could be true I suppose
Russia has been shorn of its best tanks and much of its air defense
/=/
They have suffered no losses
You are either an idiot, or you are arguing in bad faith.
Either way, you are now blocked.
Russia will not allow a ceasefire. The stated objectives of the Russian SMO is Disarm, De-Nazify and De-occupation of Ukraine. Russia will not cease until these objectives are met. Therefor Russia will only accept a surrender from the United States of Atrocities and NATO.
Ukraine has already burnt through three NATO provided armies in 2 years with significant losses in men and machinery. NATO has the following losses in Ukraine; 542 Aircraft, 255 helicopters, 9257 UAV’s, 442 Anti Aircraft systems, 13647 tanks inc. APC’s, 1185 multiple rocket launchers, 7197 field artillery and 15666 military automotive equipment. Approx. $1 Trillion of NATO hardware.
They are now asking for a fourth NATO army to be provided, the problem is that Ukraine has run out of men to throw into the meat grinder. The 20-30 male age group has collapsed. The proposal now is to draft woman and children, presumably at gunpoint like the males.
Oh well, on it goes. I of course have no power to control anything
Russia went into the SMO with an estimated 180,000 troops. It is estimated that the Russian army is now in excess of 1.5 million and growing. Battle hardened and ready for a European war against NATO.
Oh Please
At some point you are going to understand you have been lied to. And at some point you will understand the situation as it really is. Right now you think black is white, up is down etc etc etc.
Well maybe one of us will
It’s you. You and the American people have been lied to for decades now and a good portion of the population still has their heads up their own asses. The same media that told you Iraq would be a cakewalk and that Iraq would pay for their own reconstruction. The same media that for 20 years said we were winning in Afghanistan. The same media that justified the destruction of both Syria and Libya on “humanitarian” grounds.
You will believe anything you are told to believe because you are apparently so brainwashed that you will deny until the end the reality that has been staring everyone in the face since the day the war started. This was never a fight Ukraine was going to come out of in one piece sans a negotiated settlement with neutrality as one of its components.
I am really against countries invading one and other. So I was against the Iraq war I was against the Libyan fiasco the Syrian ” arming of moderates” and I am against the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Israeli invasion of Gaza. The Ukrainians want to fight their invader well I am all for helping them. This has to be mitigated somewhat by my belief that a outright collapse of Russia might be a bad thing. This thing is stalemated military victory on either side seems unlikely so eventually both sides need to negotiate.
So you didn’t believe the neocons in all the previous examples but they are completely above board here? All signs point to Russia mobilizing to steam roll Ukraine. There is no stalemate in my opinion. The Russians decided that a full out assault would lead to unacceptable civilian casualties and unacceptable military casualties. Therefore, since fall 2022 they have been conducting a classic war of attrition. The lies you have been told and are apparently believing is that the Russian regime will deal and that their military has been “degraded.” I hope I am wrong and that both sides come to the negotiating table ASAP.
“The Ukrainians want to fight their invader well I am all for helping them.”
Why?
What is your position on all the U.S. provocations that caused Russia to invade Ukraine? That’s the root of the problem, the invasion was just a result of the provocations. I don’t support Russia’s invasion because I’m anti-war, but this is far more the fault of the U.S. than of Russia.
Ah the great leader had no choice? If that is the case why don’t we replace our leaders by machines. Of course he had a choice and he chose wrong. I guess the cynic in me would say he took the bait.
What part of “I don’t support Russia’s invasion” do you not get? I suggest you take a class in how to comprehend what you read.
I don’t support Russias invasion, it is a disaster for the entire world but mostly for Ukraine and Russia. I want war to be viewed as the dumbest of all possible options, a discredited idea about how to get on in the world. The Swiss figured it out a long time ago and are doing quite well.
OK, so considering all the extreme U.S. provocations, what were Russia’s othe options?
Well to not invade springs to mind
That alone was neither an option, nor is it a response to my question. Perhaps you don’t understand that the U.S. is an evil empire that’s trying to take over the world, and that’s what all this provocation of Russia is and has been about. So one last time, considering all the U.S. provocations and the Ukraine Nazis killing thousands of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, what were Russia’s options aside from invading Ukraine? Or do you not believe that people and nations have a right to defend themselves?
How was it not an option? Russia is clearly way way worse off now than it was 600 days ago Putin made a bad descision. The operation has failed in its own terms as well as now Finland and soon Sweden will be in NATO.
It was not an option absent anything else, because Russia rightfully felt threatened by all the U.S. provocations, and because Ukraine was using its Nazis to kill thousands of ethnic Russians. Please explain what Russia was supposed to do about those things. To be clear, the ONLY reason I oppose Russia’s invasion is that I’m anti-war. Aside from that, Russia is in the right and the west in the wrong on every issue here.
And how is Russia “way way worse off” now? The ruble is stronger than it was before the invasion, Russia is now selling oil to China and India, BRICS is expanding, etc. The Russian economy wasn’t hurt nearly as bad as you think, you’re falling for U.S./western propaganda. The U.S. and the west are far worse off now, especially western Europe, where energy prices have quadrupled since the sanctions. Russia obviously had an economic plan to deal with the sanctions before it invaded, but since the egomaniacal psychopaths in the U.S. didn’t think that Russians have any intelligence, that wasn’t even considered. The sanctions have hurt the west way way more than Russia.
Those poor ethnic Russians were equipped with some pretty hi grade hardware as the unfortunate Malaysian airliner found out. This was an armed insurrection supported and equipped by Moscow, so in a semi fledge war people get hurt for sure. Deliberate slaughter, don’ know about that one. Russia could offer political asylum to ethnic Russians, aren’t they worried about the decline of the Russian propulation, and here you can get some more Russians and do a good deed, seems like a win win.
Inviting the ethnic Russians from eastern Ukraine would certainly have been a positive thing if those people wanted to move to Russia. But that’s not what they asked for: they asked Russia for military help to defend themselves against the Ukraine Nazis, who attacked them in response to their perfectly legitimate rejection of the U.S. puppet who replaced the democratically elected president in the U.S.-fomented coup.
And that’s only the minor issue here. The major one is what was Russia’s option to deal with the ever-encroaching NATO? NATO has been expanding toward Russia ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, despite multiple U.S. promises not to do so? You’re failing to acknowledge that Russia justifiably felt threatened by the NATO expansion. Acknowledge that legitimate concern, then tell me what options Russia had to deal with it. I’ve thought of one, but since you’re making this argument, I want you to tell me yours.
“The ruble is stronger than it was before the invasion”
The day of the invasion, the ruble sold for 1.2 US cents. As of November 30, it sells for 1.1 US cents, up from 1.0 cents in October. It was up versus its pre-invasion value for a time (May 2022-January 2023, but it’s mostly been falling since then.
Correct. Americans are the most brainwashed people in the world, because they’re the most propagandized, and their propaganda is the most sophisticated. At least people in the Soviet Union knew they were being lied to.
At some point you are going to understand you have been lied to. And at some point you will understand the situation as it really is. Right now you think black is white, up is down etc etc etc.
I could be wrong, but I thought it was closer to 100,000 on the initial invasion. Either way, not enough to conquer Ukraine. Enough to scare them to the negotiating, though. Too bad the Americans had to scupper the peace talks in Turkey.
All of you seem to take a position that the invaded should negotiate if they are in a position of weakness. Would all of you have offered that same advice to the Native Americans during the US/Indian wars? I’m gonna go out on a limb and say no. (Because your tankie mentality allows you to believe ONLY the US can be evil and invade another country.)
You seem to take the position that every last Ukrainian must die on the pyre of NATO imperial ambitions. Ukraine, like it or not, is situated in a strategic position right next door to a nuclear superpower. Do you understand the implications of this reality? The same applies to Cuba, Canada, and Mexico. Are you so stupid to think that the U.S. would allow Russia or China to put nuclear weapons in either of those countries? GTFO with your “tankie” bullshit and neocon propaganda.
You, my friend, have no idea what the f**k you’re talking about. Nuclear weapons are off EVERY coast if the country that wields them has submarines capable of launching them. (Up your knowledge level, son!)
Also, UKRAINE decides how many Ukrainians will sacrifice their lives for the freedom of Ukraine. I’ll support ANY country that was invaded in their fight for freedom and independence. (You comment like a petulant child and you definitely fit the definition of tankie.)
Hey dipshit SSBNs have been around since the 60’s. We still threatened nuclear war over missiles in Cuba, and Russia still wanted us to take our intermediate range missiles out of Turkey.
“I’ll support ANY country that was invaded in their fight for freedom and independence.”
Do you support Syrians in their fight to remove American invaders from their territory? Do you support Iraq in trying to get American troops out of their country? Do you support the Iraqi and Syrian militias currently attacking the American invaders?
“Also, UKRAINE decides how many Ukrainians will sacrifice their lives for the freedom of Ukraine.”
I agree, but right now it is the Banderite Nazi scum who is making the decisions.
“You comment like a petulant child and you definitely fit the definition of tankie.”
You comment like a neocon propaganda artist who sucks deep state cock.
And what is your position on the massive U.S. provocation of Russia, starting with expansion of NATO east of unified Germany, and including the 2014 U.S. fomented coup in Ukraine, and the killing of thousands of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine by the Nazis that the U.S. employed to make the revolution happen?
And another 10 million zombie troops reincarnated from the Battle of Stalingrad! Hahaha. Toolbag!
And yet, Ukraine still advances on the left bank of the Dnipro. How’s it going for Putin’s boys around Avdiivka? They may finally take it but at what cost?
Slava Ukraini!
Actually, they’ve pulled back a bit in the last week or two in the face of a blistering barrage of Russian artillery, night vision equipped FPV drones, and FAB-500s. The Russians are now content to let the Ukrainians send as many men as they want across the Dnieper so that they can be promptly attrited. The Ukrainian desperation is getting sad to watch. I feel sorry for those poor SOBs who are being sacrificed on the altar of Bandera.
Horses**t and you know it. You continue to get your info from the Russian MOD, tankie. The slowdown on the Dnipro was due to a typhoon-like storm. Did you miss that in Putin’s propaganda dump?
The Ukrainians had retreated or been pushed back (just a little, but they certainly weren’t advancing) the week before the storm. Try to keep up.
The rootin’, tootin’, Putin lover has spoken!
Russians have advanced AND been pushed back in different areas around Avdiivka.
Ukrainians have ADVANCED and NOT been pushed back in the Krinky area.
Ukrainians have mostly advanced and not been pushed back around Robotine.
The Russians may be massing troops to advance in the direction of Kupiansk.
YOU keep up, son. (Most of that info is available from RUSSIAN MIL-BLOGGERS.)
You really are grasping at straws aren’t you. The only thing you are correct about here is that yes the Ukrainians captured a tree row on the west side of Robotyne. The part you don’t seem to get is that in both cases, Robotyne and Krinky, the Ukrainians are pushing troops into an artillery pocket where the Russians have fire superiority and can attrit any forces that are thrown at them. This has been going on for 5+ months now and you can’t figure it out.
“Shorn of its best tanks”. Really? Says who? By all legitimate accounts, Russia has MORE of its T90M tanks in the field now than they did in 2022; more of the older T72s fielded are now the newer T72BVM models, and more of the T-80s now the T-80BVM model, which is about to go back into brand new production (the other “new” ones fielded this year were upgrade/rehabs of older models pulled from storage).
Additionally, they have fielded several hundred older T-55 tanks, NOT to “replace newer tanks” but to supplement their self propelled artillery forces, as the T-55 has an indirect fire capability and the Russians have access to literally millions of 100mm shells from Cold War stocks that aren’t used by their more modern equipment.
The total manpower fielded is considerably greater than at the start of the war, much of the equipment is newer, and since they have been on the defensive for much of the year, they haven’t been subject to the same wear and tear.
To what “legitimate accounts” do you refer?
I confess to still finding tank numbers interesting, even though this war has pretty firmly established their obselescence.
Here’s a list, and includes eurasiantimes, reuters, forbes (Hardly “pro-russian” sites, the last two), defense.ua.com, armyrecognition.com, Lemonde.FR
Some more dubious ones; Bulgarianmilitary.com, NYTimes (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/us/politics/russia-sanctions-missile-production.html)
Just google “Russia increases tank production”
Western media is funny (not “ha-Ha” but like a circus clown; and talk out of both sides of their mouths, which is why I list the NYtimes as a dubious source; they have two incompatible “facts” that they must keep repeating; “Ukraine is winning and Russia is being shattered” while at the same time “Russia is a menace and only much more aid can keep Ukraine from being devoured”. The link I gave falls into the latter; Russia is increasing arms production so we must increase Ukraine aid.
But the top list of links has some interesting stories.
And I don’t think tanks are obsolescent or obsolete; Just; their deployment will need to change, and will for the short term take a back seat to EW-jamming and air (anti-drone) defensive measures. The use of manned aircraft, including helicopters, will face the same challenge. And god help the navy if THEY ever get into a real shooting war.
Right. That’s why Time magazine, an old favorite of operation mockingbird, is permitted to call Zelensky, “ delusional” and “messianic”, and the “only one who believes that the war could be won”.
There are no conscripts left. The average age now is 40. There are protests, even in the western parts of Ukraine that was highly supportive of war. Families and friends of soldiers say there is no end to the their tours. That’s because there aren’t replacements. Half a million are dead, others fled through out Europe, some have paid their $5k in bribery to be released. Zelensky has now made sick people eligible for conscription. He is pushing women toward battle which is against gender norms in Ukrainian society.
Well, we’re not going to run out of Ukrainians until we manage to include their women in the draft. All those chants of people celebrating this move as an accomplishment of the ultimate “gender equality” makes me… Utterly Disgusted! …What’s that? …You thought I was gonna say, “Cry?” …No. I’m done crying. I’m overwhelmed with DISGUST.
Same.
The West is happy to export one sided rhetoric as long as Russians keep dying, for as long as Ukraine is willing to keep sending it’s people to die for no good reason. Maybe it’s just as well for this to end with US political dysfunction on display, unable to send more arms, and Russia seizing all of Ukraine. Gaza is proving to everyone that Western rhetoric is BS, with no real rules or consistent principles that anyone should take seriously.
We have a lot more BS coming. You haven’t seen anything yet. Besides, we’re not running out of Ukrainians. We’re sending in all 17 to 70 Ukrainians to die, including and not exclusively pregnant women. How Zelensky remains the President of Ukraine is a testament to how cruel are our CIA, so called leaders, media/propaganda machine.
Well, we can only “send” those who are willing to go. LOTS of Ukrainian men have evaded conscription, and will continue to do so; changing the scale of the target mass by a few years in each direction won’t do much to change that; just increase the number of evaders.
Just simple math; the problem must be far, far worse than anyone will let on.
IF Ukraine had 32 million people under their control in March 2022, then presumably they had some 7 million men in the 18-54 year age group; maybe 3 million in the more desirable 18-36 range. In March 2022 they had an army, including reserves, of some 650,000, quickly increased to 1 million. That leaves some 2 million in the target group still uncommitted. Ukraine has lost, on the high end, some 1 million men (killed, critically wounded, captured, missing) so should still have at least 2 million 18-36 year olds available, but their total forces only seem to be a little over 1 million, and the “average age” is in the low 40s, well outside the target zone. so only about 1/2, at the most, could be “18-36” year olds. So where the hell did all the rest of the 18-36 year old men go???
Assuming they all successfully hid from the press gang this year, or left the country, I expect they’ll continue to do so next year as well. Increasing the draft to 16 or 17 year olds probably won’t do much; any of them with any sense left the country last year.
We decide nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.
Wrong in so many ways. First off, “we” (ie the USA), have every right to “decide” what, how much, and if at all, we give to the Ukraine, whether that is “about” the Ukraine or not. It is “our” (meaning the citizens of the USA, whom Mr. O’Brien represents) money, not the Ukraine’s. Secondly, don’t all nations “decide” what they are going to do based on their own interests, not on whether it affects some other nation or not? Cases in point: didn’t the USA, after years, no, decades, of making just this kind of high-sounding, noble claim, “decide” some pretty important things about South Vietnam and Afghanistan, without caring too much about what their governments had to say about them? As in dumping those regimes, and letting their enemies destroy them? Thirdly, the USA routinely, including in this case, “decides” to pursue bellicose policies, using third parties as proxies, against its opponents, and also routinely, and also in this case, pressures/blackmails/forces those opponents to stay in the fight. The USA “decided” to overthrow the government of the Ukraine, “decided” to support and arm it, “decided” to push it into armed conflict, first with its own, Russian-speaking citizens, and then with Russia proper, and then “decided” to pressure it against ending that conflict, when it could have done so with minimal consequences, and minimal loss of life, limb and property all around. All on its own,
The statement is a self serving lie. And an obvious one at that.
But he is right about one thing: there is “…no indication that Russia is willing to entertain substantive, real peace negotiations.” And that’s why he has to deny that Washington is on its knees to Putin.
I think, even now, Russia IS willing to entertain substantive, real peace negotiations. It’s just that the terms have changed, since the USA/UK scuttled the last peace deal. Now, the Ukraine must not only be demilitarized and neutralized, as before, but Russia is also going to insist on at least some territorial change as well. What Russia probably doesn’t want is some kind of “frozen conflict/ceasefire” arrangement, in which the USA and NATO have time and space to put the Ukrainian military Humpty Dumpty back together again and get it ready for the next round.
I think Putin knows his days are numbered, mostly by his age, but also because he may have to push that shiny big red button on the top of his desk. Anything short of that, he wants to fix the Ukraine problem for a hundred years at least. Some cosmetic agreements that we never abide by, is not gonna cut it, my friend. Not after you took out and sharpened all your knives, bled this much, and broke several fingernails. He’s in it to fix it.
I think Putin knows his days are numbered, mostly by his age
In this country he’d still be years away from his first term.
Yeah, but we must be better at something. Is it mummifying or is it growing vampires? What are you thinking? …I know. Me too.
…I agree. We’re better at something, but thinking is not one of them.
There’s no question who’s better at mummyfying. It ain’t the US.
https://ideaguide.ru/sites/default/files/corp_lenine.jpg
Lmao
I’m not talking about a “cosmetic agreement.” I am talking about a hard and fast, bright line rule. The Ukraine is to NEVER join NATO or any Western military alliance. It is to have no military co operation with the West. No nuclear weapons or other WMD. If it violates any of that, Russia immediately re starts the SMO, only this time, without the gloves on. Also, the Ukraine is to cede territory, de jure, to Russia. Crimea, the Donbass, the land bridge, and possibly more.
Putin, like the Soviet leaders before him, has always shown himself to be reasonable and to be ready to make a deal. Hardliners in (and out of) Russia don’t like him for that reason. But the reality is, just like during the Cold War, the USA actually IS stronger. It does have more and more potent allies. It does have control of much the world’s economy and politics and international organizations. It is no accident that the battle is being fought in Russia’s “backyard,” rather than in Mexico or Canada or even Nicragua, Cuba or Venezuela. Just as it is no coincidence that the USA’s “red line” with respect to China is in the Taiwan straights, not Puget Sound.
I also think nuclear war, short of a US-led invasion of Russia itself, is off the table, at least as far as Putin is concerned.
Yes & no. Washington has no leverage left. It’s just begging not to be humiliated in front of the US population. Russia is agreeable to that, the price being NATO exclusion from the Black Sea, permanent monitored neutrality for Ukraine, and Nuremburg trials for Zelinsky & his nazis.
Access to the Black Sea is largely determined by Turkey — a NATO member.
Not “access”, Putin will demand “neutrality”.
Well, you know what they say — demand in one hand, shit in the other, and note which hand gets full first.
Ah yes, I do know that tune. You’re used to doing your specialty and just walking away. Well this isn’t Nam.
Turkey — a NATO member.
Ah hem… Yeah, sorta.
I would say NATO exclusion from the Ukraine (not the Black Sea, as Turkey and Romania and Bulagaria all have Black Sea coasts), permanent, monitored demilitirization and neutralization of the Ukraine, AND de jure recognition of new borders, including, at the least, all of the territory now in Russia’s hands. And, possibly, the removal of the sanctions.
I think Putin could probably live without the “Nuremburg” trials for Z and co. In the end, they don’t really matter, if they are out of power, and a rump, neutered Ukraine no longer poses any threat to Russia, no matter who is in charge. I think, in the end, all the talk on both sides about reparations and war crimes and trials and so on is just that: Talk.
“…Putin could probably live without the “Nuremburg” trials….”
I think Putin’s piety, his devotion to Russian heritage, both ancient (classical Greece) and modern (his parents’ lives in WWII), weighs heavily on his Slavic soul. He has to require a return for the lives of 100K Russian soldiers. Justice is the foundation of the State (Solon).
That’s the same BS pulled by JFK. It is BS. Our regime’s humiliating defeat out in the open and explicitly to its deaf and dumb population is the only way to stop this regime from pulling this $hit again. Not declaring the withdrawal of our nuclear missiles from Turkey was Russia’s mistake then that enabled much more evil from our regime.
Suburban complaisance is impenetrable so long as the consumerist idyll perdures. Neoliberalism, running on fumes and militay keynesianism, must soon peter out leaving the burbs bereft of health care, education, retirement, clean water, …, and mountains of Pentagon junk, hollow NeoCon exceptionalism, and woke decadence. So why bother about over puny rag of decency?
I think the essence of the problem is that Russia no longer trusts the US. If a treaty gets in the way of a policy goal, we ignore or revoke it (ABM, INF, cluster munitions).
Despite widely publicized commitments, Biden has sent long range weapons to Ukraine that have been used to strike Russia itself, and he is now doubling down (again) with shipments of ATACMs, F-16’s, next generation drones, etc.
Russia made it crystal clear that increasing the range of AFU weapons would force Russia to create buffer zones to keep these weapons beyond the range of targets deep inside their own borders.
At this point, it boggles the imagination to think that anyone in Washington thinks that they are going to trick Russia with talk or duplicitous offers of peace.
I can’t comprehend why the Biden Administration plays these games. If funding is cut off, Ukraine can’t even pay the cost of running its government. There are no choices for Ukraine here, and everybody knows it.
My best guess is that the weasels who pushed Ukraine into this war are determined to cast the blame for the losses upon anyone other than themselves.
Philly lawyer sums up my understanding. US govt. is antagonistic, un-diplomatic and spoiling for war at every turn. And has been since they got the Kennedys out of the way. Ike warned us that we needed an educated public to prevent this.
Agreed. But I’m also starting to wonder if some of the decision makers are using the conflict to maximize personal benefits. I’ve wondered about this since the Euromaidan riots, which began just a few days after Yanukovych secured a considerably better trade agreement for Ukraine with Russia than the EU was willing to discuss.
U.S. is scraping the ground for any pieces of face they can save.
The derivatives bubble is estimated to exceed one quadrillion dollars. The entire GDP of the world is estimated at $105 trillion and the collective wealth of the world is an estimated $360 trillion. The majority of these derivatives now involve interest rate swaps, and interest rates have shot up.
There obviously is not enough collateral to cover all the derivative claims.
Decamp did a great peace detailing NATO’s provocations of Russia / Putin within the context of a Rand report that spelled out how our unhinged government could incite a conflict.
A common sense update on Global-Communism versus Sovereign Nations (editor-in-chief at Ronin’s Revelations). Podcasts coming soon:
https://roninhardjan.substack.com/p/americas-shadow-government-behind
what has it been about a month since we were told that uncle sam was refusing to let Ukraine surrender? oh maybe suddenly there aren’t enough weapons for Ukraine now that Israel is the daily dilemma
As if Russia is waiting and dying to talk peace with Ukraine…!
Yup. I wonder if they think Russia is eager to accept their offers? They’re so consistently clueless that they might think just that.
It seems Ukraine was also given a date to start initiating a peace discussion…!
https://sputnikglobe.com/20231128/new-submarine-joins-russian-pacific-fleet-1115250070.html
New Submarine Joins Russian Pacific Fleet
A relatively thrifty platform to launch Kalibr missiles and torpedoes.
I have to withdraw my comment on the US lying about having ‘nudged’ Ukraine to negotiate.
If the US has nudged Ukraine, it is imo implausible that it’s done so as the German anonymous source claims: I just read the piece on the Bild article, and the anonymous commentator is clearly NOT describing a strategy, but – rather – his/her interpretation of the outcome current funding is likely to produce – an outcome he/she is characterizing as a “policy” or “strategy.”
And why make such unlikely claims? Well if yr a neocon, you say it to lay responsibility for losing the war – which was arguably unwinnable – on the Democratic Party-led US. ie – what the Republican, ultra-neocons have long been doing anyway, crying ‘too little too late;’
or to rephrase above – labeling ‘stalemate-geared-funding’ a strategy becomes a neocon rationalization for what was actually an unavoidable failure of the war – ‘we could have won if those sissy liberals hadn’t been afraid to ‘close the skies’ from day one.’
What is with the AP articles I’m seeing posted here? Is someone at AW trying to send a message?
What do you mean? Antiwar.com consults a variety of sources, including Associated Press, for its own news coverage.
Official – “no, there’s no US policy” of raising negotiations?
Weasel words. Evasive weasel words – note he didn’t say, ‘we never raised the issue as was reported,’ instead says there’s no new ‘policy.’
[NOTE: changed my mind on this in another post…the Bild report is someone’s interpretation of what US policy might result in, not a deliberate US ‘policy’ or ‘strategy’.]
Actually, it’s the U.S. taxpayer that is starting to pressure Ukraine.
First rule of US Empire – never believe the government, “if their lips are moving they’re lying.” Of course the US wants out of Ukraine, its a colossal disaster, predicted 30+ years ago it was doomed from the beginning. Though it must be said the US promised to stick with Ukraine till the last Ukrainian and now conscripting “7 to 70” the US is very close to fulfilling that promise.
From the Balkans to now Gaza, post-Cold War US foreign policy has produced little worldwide (or outside the 1%, domestically) but virtually incomprehensible death and destruction. Same people, same outcome, time and again. But their “world’s sole superpower” is no more and memories and social media have a way of dispelling lies, no matter how big the military budget behind them.
The stated objectives of the Russian SMO is Disarm, De-Nazify and De-occupation of Ukraine. Russia will not cease until these objectives are met. Therefor Russia will only accept a surrender from the United States of Atrocities and NATO.
Ukraine has already burnt through three NATO provided armies in 2 years with significant losses in men and machinery. NATO has the following losses in Ukraine; 542 Aircraft, 255 helicopters, 9263 UAV’s, 442 Anti Aircraft systems, 13659 tanks inc. APC’s, 1185 multiple rocket launchers, 7194 field artillery and 15698 military automotive equipment. Approx. $1 Trillion of NATO hardware.
They are now asking for a fourth NATO army to be provided, the problem is that Ukraine has run out of men to throw into the meat grinder. The 20-30 male age group has collapsed. The proposal now is to draft woman and children, presumably at gunpoint like the males.
General Kellogg said “I believe if you can defeat a strategic adversary not using any U.S troops, it is the Azimuth of professionalism. Because letting Ukrainians defeat an opponent takes a strategic adversary off the table. Then we can focus where we should be focusing against our primary adversary, which is China. … why hasn’t Germany stepped up and done its part on lethal Aid …”
https://youtu.be/tmmPHvlbdwI?t=26
The US wanted to use Ukraine to defeat Russia in order to focus on China. That is why the US/UK provoked the war and that is why the US/UK torpedoed peace talks in March 2022. Now that things have gone wrong, the US/UK will just dump Ukraine on Europe hoping that the Germans will once again wage war on Russia, or at least pick up the tab for keeping Ukraine in the fight.
The Germans may be stupid enough to actually do it and sink their economy for good.