Ukraine – Russia … not more of the last thread

M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
This is of course unconfirmed, but Ukraine's head of military intelligence says that "[Putin] has several serious illnesses, one of which is cancer. But it is not worth hoping that Putin will die tomorrow. He has at least a few more years. Like it or not, but it's true."

 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I'm not sure I agree with Kissinger, but he apparently thinks that Russia will be pushed into a permanent alliance with China if the war continues. Assuming this is true, I find myself wondering why a permanent alliance is worse than whatever alliance they have right now?

>>>He [Kissinger] told the World Economic Forum that Russia had been an essential part of Europe for 400 years and had been the guarantor of the European balance of power structure at critical times. European leaders should not lose sight of the longer term relationship, and nor should they risk pushing Russia into a permanent alliance with China.<<<

Anytime I see that Henry Kissinger has spoken up, my first reaction is "Who asked that criminal for his opinion?" Henry Kissinger has violated several federal laws:
  1. In 1967-68, while consulting with the Lyndon Johnson administration, he received a security clearance that allowed him to learn secret details of the Paris peace negotiations with North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the USA. To get the clearance he signed an oath to keep those secrets. Breaking that signed oath was a prosecutable crime. During the 1968 presidential election campaign, he revealed those secrets to uncleared people in Nixon's campaign – a clear-cut direct violation of the US Espionage Act of 1917. Kissinger was playing both sides, as he sought a high powered job in the future, no matter who won the election.

  2. As he did this, he allowed the Nixon campaign to secretly and illegally communicate with the govt. of South Vietnam, advising them to avoid signing any peace agreement. As a reward, they would get better treatment from a future Nixon administration. This violated the Logan Act, that prevents civilians from attempting to interfere with US foreign affairs.

  3. Once Nixon won the 1968 election, Kissinger became complicit in Nixon's 5-year criminal prolongation of the Vietnam war, from 1968 until February of 1972 – immediately after Nixon was inaugurated to his second term.
All three of these make Kissinger a war criminal and a traitor to his country. No one wants to hear from this unrepentant criminal.
 
Last edited:
haraldo

haraldo

Audioholic Spartan
⚡There will be a negotiating table. There will be peace" The main thing from Zelensky's speech in Davos

The President spoke at the Ukrainian breakfast:

When will the war end? It depends on many factors. First of all, from the desire to fight the fear, as well as from the desire of the Russian Federation.

There will be a negotiating table, that's for sure. The only question is with whom Ukraine will negotiate, with which president of Russia.

Ukraine is not going to make concessions. We are fighting on our land, for our land, for our future.

When Ukraine says that it wants to return all its territories, it means to return all its territories.

I do not see Russia's interest in the negotiations. The only positive thing is that the parties started talking about unblocking Azovstal and evacuating people.

Ukraine is satisfied with China's policy regarding the war with Russia.

Has the sixth package of sanctions been introduced? No, why? Nothing suits Hungary. Something is wrong with the oil.
 
H

hole46

Audiophyte
WGAF about Hungary, another Fascist state!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
Anytime I see that Henry Kissinger has spoken up, my first reaction is "Who asked that criminal for his opinion?" Henry Kissinger has violated several federal laws:
  1. In 1967-68, while consulting with the Lyndon Johnson administration, he received a security clearance that allowed him to learn secret details of the Paris peace negotiations with North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the USA. To get the clearance he signed an oath to keep those secrets. Breaking that signed oath was a prosecutable crime. During the 1968 presidential election campaign, he revealed those secrets to uncleared people in Nixon's campaign – a clear-cut direct violation of the US Espionage Act of 1917. Kissinger was playing both sides, as he sought a high powered job in the future, no matter who won the election.

  2. As he did this, he allowed the Nixon campaign to secretly and illegally communicate with the govt. of South Vietnam, advising them to avoid signing any peace agreement. As a reward, they would get better treatment from a future Nixon administration. This violated the Logan Act, that prevents civilians from attempting to interfere with US foreign affairs.

  3. Once Nixon won the election, Kissinger became complicit in Nixon's 5-year criminal prolongation of the Vietnam war, from 1968 until February of 1972 – immediately after Nixon was inaugurated to his second term.
All three of these make Kissinger a war criminal and a traitor to his country. No one wants to hear from this unrepentant criminal.
No doubt, he'll be in the same circle of hell as Cardinal Richelieu but he remains a very influential and mentoring figure with the world elite and Davos/World Economic Forum crowd and Klaus Schwab . He even has his own webpage there.

 
haraldo

haraldo

Audioholic Spartan
No doubt, he'll be in the same circle of hell as Cardinal Richelieu but he remains a very influential and mentoring figure with the world elite and Davos/World Economic Forum crowd and Klaus Schwab . He even has his own webpage there.

I saw today, and can only think, what the he#$# is wrong with Kissinger....
This is like a robber enter your hous to steal everything you have and flatten the inside, and you tell him, by the way take my loudspeakers and streamer, you are already here so guess we should share :mad:

Zelensky condemns Kissinger idea for negotiations with Russia as 1938-style appeasement
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
I saw today, and can only think, what the he#$# is wrong with Kissinger....
This is like a robber enter your hous to steal everything you have and flatten the inside, and you tell him, by the way take my loudspeakers and streamer, you are already here so guess we should share :mad:

Zelensky condemns Kissinger idea for negotiations with Russia as 1938-style appeasement
Kissinger is always working an agenda for his benefactors. The essential question: "Cui Bono?" and follow the trail.
Quote: "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
I'm not sure I agree with Kissinger, but he apparently thinks that Russia will be pushed into a permanent alliance with China if the war continues. Assuming this is true, I find myself wondering why a permanent alliance is worse than whatever alliance they have right now?

>>>He [Kissinger] told the World Economic Forum that Russia had been an essential part of Europe for 400 years and had been the guarantor of the European balance of power structure at critical times. European leaders should not lose sight of the longer term relationship, and nor should they risk pushing Russia into a permanent alliance with China.<<<

Why would he hold onto the idea that Russia can be as useful to Europe as it was before 1917?

I sincerely hope this won't become the tipping point that causes a one world government. I can't see that going well.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
Why would he hold onto the idea that Russia can be as useful to Europe as it was before 1917?

I sincerely hope this won't become the tipping point that causes a one world government. I can't see that going well.
A possible interpretation of his mindset for Europe's interests:
A Russia that would have been "controlled"or "contained" and properly incorporated into the Western Economic system would have been useful to Europe for energy and raw materials with some technology. Also, they would have served as a buffer to offset an expansionist China.
As for one world gov't? To those that favor that idea, two things stand in the way. China, unless they run that government and the US.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
This article suggests that the U.S. may be supplying Ukraine with precision mobile rocket artillery. However, it's very unclear exactly what systems have been (will be?) supplied (the basis is for the "many believe" statement is unclear, so this needs to be taken a with a grain of salt).

>>>In an interview with Ukrainian Pravda, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland stated that thanks to U.S. military aid, Ukraine “already has multiple launch rocket systems”, though these had not been specifically listed as part of extended aid packages.

When pressed on the discrepancy, she made it “absolutely clear” that “We already supply MLRS systems. And it wasn’t just us.”

The implication seemingly is that U.S. MRLS transfers had been kept under the table until this interview. Nuland’s reference to “it wasn’t just us” likely refers to confirmed transfers of at least 20 Czech RM-70 systems and at least 20 similar Polish BM-21 rocket launchers.

Though quantity, type, and even presence in Ukraine remain uninformed, many believe [who?] the U.S.-supplied MRLS is the M142 HIMARS, developed as a more deployable lightweight complement to the Army’s 27.5-ton M270 MRLS. Indeed, in an address earlier in April, Pres. Zelensky specifically requested M270s or HIMARS systems. However, it’s also possible Nuland referred to U.S. stocks of Soviet launchers used for training. <<<

Ukraine is again specifically asking for M270 MLRS or M142 HIMARS weapons right now. I do wonder why the U.S. is apparently unwilling to provide these right now. If U.S. strategy is to weaken Russia, there's no point in forking around with it (unless the U.S. is already supplying them, and this most recent "ask" is disinformation intended to mislead the Russians)(this is strikes me as unlikely).

>>>We urgently need M270 MLRS or M142 HIMARS to save the lives of #Ukrainian soldiers and stopping the #russian attack. . . . USA has 2,000 MLRS in the army and in warehouses. If they give us just 200 of those, we will stop russian attack on #Donbas and will throw them outside of #Ukraine!<<<



Of course, the ever-present fear of escalation is undoubtedly a factor:

>>>After initially forecasting Ukraine would be overrun by Russia's much bigger military, American officials have recently voiced hopes that Ukrainian forces can win the war, and want to arm them to do so.

U.S. officials say the Biden administration is even considering supplying Kyiv with the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), which depending on the munitions can have a range of hundreds of kilometers.<<<

 
haraldo

haraldo

Audioholic Spartan
photo_2022-05-26 23.57.45.jpeg


Podolyak: All the statements of Russians to the citizens of the occupied territories that "Russia is here to stay" is an informational and psychological campaign to make people feel abandoned.

He underlined, that as soon as the Russian military machine is exhausted, Ukraine will go on the counterattack and liberate the territories.

Source: https://t.me/ukrainenowenglish/9180
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
A possible interpretation of his mindset for Europe's interests:
A Russia that would have been "controlled"or "contained" and properly incorporated into the Western Economic system would have been useful to Europe for energy and raw materials with some technology. Also, they would have served as a buffer to offset an expansionist China.
As for one world gov't? To those that favor that idea, two things stand in the way. China, unless they run that government and the US.
It's safe to say that Gary Kasparov is not a Kissinger fan:

>>>The profiteers and appeasers, working with or for Putin, like Kissinger, join the false "peacemakers" in France and Italy to send more Ukrainians to the hell of Russian occupation, dozens of Buchas to come. Who are they to tell Ukrainians how to live and die? 3/13<<<


Based on what I'm seeing in the recent news blurbs about Kissinger, he seems to 1) assume that some sort of a historical powerful Russian status quo is desirable, and 2) he seems to equate Putin with this supposedly desirable historical Russia. Assuming this interpretation of Kissinger's position is accurate, 1 and 2 both seem weak.

First, Kissinger's views seem to echo Putin's weird claims to some sort of historical world order with Russia being the center of power. If one wants to base policy on reality, modern Russia is a backward country with a small, low-tech economy that largely relies on selling natural resources. Starting the war was an attempt by Putin to stave off the inevitable decline of Russia resulting from his policies.

Second, the times when Russia was relatively powerful may have been good for a few Czars and dictators, but it s*cked for everyone else who had to live under them (e.g. the holodomor famine in Ukraine). Russian power didn't result in some sort of a fairy tale existence that the rest of the planet wants to return to.

Third, even if there is a valid claim of sorts that it's best for Russia to maintain power, which date is used? Why not pick a date when Russia was ruled by Mongols? If one is appealing to history, why don't the Mongols have a valid claim to being a world power?

Also, weakening Putin in hopes he's pushed out is not the same thing as attempting some sort of grand beat down of Russia as a country. Putin s*cks. Putin tries to wrap himself in some sort of historical Russian grandeur, but the simple fact is he s*cks. Russia could do well if it had a government that wasn't run by power hungry kleptomaniacs.

Having said that, I'm not sure I completely understand Kissinger's position, and I may have inadvertently created a straw man.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
This is a really interesting article about what is going on in Russia and the Russian military. I'm not sure how reliable Soldatov and his sources are, but he seems to have better insight than most.

Unfortunately, according to him, most Russians support the war and the military is by and large okay with a long war because they view it as inevitable.

One aspect of this that is unsettling is that the Russian military actually seems to think they would have a better chance against NATO than against a Ukraine that is equipped with NATO weapons. It may be true that Russia has a higher tolerance for casualties, but this line of thinking strikes me as being absurd (Chime cuckoo for cocoa puffs meme).

>>>Does this suggest that Putin has simply blamed the intelligence agencies for the war’s problems? Or is it that he has no option now, other than to turn even more to the military?

That’s the problem. He’s actually out of options. He’s quite limited. He got himself in a big war, and right now the military is finally quite convinced that they are fighting a really big war, not just some limited conflict. So what’s he going to do? He needs to vow to keep going in Ukraine. And he understands that he’s fighting a conventional army, not some group of Nazis. And the military thinking is that in this big war, the Russian Army is on the losing end, because the Ukrainian Army is a completely mobilized army that actually claims it can call on hundreds of thousands more in reserves. The Russian Army is still largely a peacetime army.

At the same time, the Ukrainian Army is given the best weaponry that the West can provide. And this weaponry is tested against the Russians and the Russians are not in position to inflict any damage on NATO. They’re suffering heavy losses from the weaponry supplied by NATO countries.

For many years, the Russian military believed that they had a chance to win a conflict with the West, not because they have better technology—they knew that the West always would have better technology—but because the West, and specifically the United States, would never sustain heavy casualties like the Russian Army can sustain, because, to the leadership, the cost of life is different. But in this war, in Ukraine, all the casualties are not by NATO or by the American Army but by the Ukrainian Army. So even this cannot be played by the Russian Army. And that is why they think that they picked up a fight with NATO in the wrong place.<<<

 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
This is a really interesting article about what is going on in Russia and the Russian military. I'm not sure how reliable Soldatov and his sources are, but he seems to have better insight than most.

Unfortunately, according to him, most Russians support the war and the military is by and large okay with a long war because they view it as inevitable.

One aspect of this that is unsettling is that the Russian military actually seems to think they would have a better chance against NATO than against a Ukraine that is equipped with NATO weapons. It may be true that Russia has a higher tolerance for casualties, but this line of thinking strikes me as being absurd (Chime cuckoo for cocoa puffs meme).

>>>Does this suggest that Putin has simply blamed the intelligence agencies for the war’s problems? Or is it that he has no option now, other than to turn even more to the military?

That’s the problem. He’s actually out of options. He’s quite limited. He got himself in a big war, and right now the military is finally quite convinced that they are fighting a really big war, not just some limited conflict. So what’s he going to do? He needs to vow to keep going in Ukraine. And he understands that he’s fighting a conventional army, not some group of Nazis. And the military thinking is that in this big war, the Russian Army is on the losing end, because the Ukrainian Army is a completely mobilized army that actually claims it can call on hundreds of thousands more in reserves. The Russian Army is still largely a peacetime army.

At the same time, the Ukrainian Army is given the best weaponry that the West can provide. And this weaponry is tested against the Russians and the Russians are not in position to inflict any damage on NATO. They’re suffering heavy losses from the weaponry supplied by NATO countries.

For many years, the Russian military believed that they had a chance to win a conflict with the West, not because they have better technology—they knew that the West always would have better technology—but because the West, and specifically the United States, would never sustain heavy casualties like the Russian Army can sustain, because, to the leadership, the cost of life is different. But in this war, in Ukraine, all the casualties are not by NATO or by the American Army but by the Ukrainian Army. So even this cannot be played by the Russian Army. And that is why they think that they picked up a fight with NATO in the wrong place.<<<

It is one explanation as to why the Russians are so criminally brutal in conflicts and wars: An utter lack of respect for human life.

As luck has it NATO avoided a direct war with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but the resistance Russia met in Ukraine should at least cause some cognitive dissonance as to their conventional military capacity.
 
M

Mojo Navigator

Audioholic Intern
Kissinger is a spineless, feeble, cowardly, morally bankrupt 99 yo who has no concept of sacrifice for one's country or culture. He has always been a purveyor of bad ideas. Remember Vietnam, Nixon in China, Chilean dictators, and genocide in Bangladesh ? Considered by many experts to be a war criminal. He is a disgrace to the USA.

Ask Mr. Kissinger which part of the USA should we offer to appease Mr. Putin?
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
It is one explanation as to why the Russians are so criminally brutal in conflicts and wars: An utter lack of respect for human life.

As luck has it NATO avoided a direct war with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but the resistance Russia met in Ukraine should at least cause some cognitive dissonance as to their conventional military capacity.
Let's hope they don't decide to step it up a few notches.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Having said that, I'm not sure I completely understand Kissinger's position, and I may have inadvertently created a straw man.
I think you're being far too gentle on Kissinger.

In college, I remember seeing graffiti on a bathroom wall, in the library stacks, nearby the history section. It said "Russia is a buffer state that separates Poland from China." It made reference to the often-mentioned idea that, after WW1, Poland was created as a buffer state between Germany and Russia. (It was funnier during the Cold War.)

Kissinger reminds me of that. He's a war criminal who confuses himself for a great statesman.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
I think you're being far too gentle on Kissinger.

In college, I remember seeing graffiti on a bathroom wall, in the library stacks, nearby the history section. It said "Russia is a buffer state that separates Poland from China." It made reference to the often-mentioned idea that, after WW1, Poland was created as a buffer state between Germany and Russia. (It was funnier during the Cold War.)

Kissinger reminds me of that. He's a war criminal who confuses himself for a great statesman.
Yeah I remember those jokes about European buffer states. I remember the creation of Belgium was the earlier one. The fact is, you cannot have an effective buffer state on the Northern European Plain. Besides the rivers, armies just march from East to West and vice versa with only the weather to stop them.

IRO Kissinger, what is truly disturbing, is how much influence he has with the self professed world elites and the Davos crowd who drink in his "wisdom" and world views.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Kissinger is a spineless, feeble, cowardly, morally bankrupt 99 yo who has no concept of sacrifice for one's country or culture. He has always been a purveyor of bad ideas. Remember Vietnam, Nixon in China, Chilean dictators, and genocide in Bangladesh ? Considered by many experts to be a war criminal. He is a disgrace to the USA.

Ask Mr. Kissinger which part of the USA should we offer to appease Mr. Putin?
I might come up with a couple. ;)
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top