What does Putin want (and whatabout it)

nan said:

Jaytee said:

Think about this for a moment. If Putin defeats Ukraine, Iran destroys Israel and China takes Taiwan by force, how secure would anyone in America feel then? All this mumbo jumbo is only fueling our enemies to destroy us ultimately. 
We must defend Israel and Ukraine right now. We can leave the infighting and differences aside for now. 

Putin has already defeated Ukraine and Taiwan is part of China and Israel just blew up an Iranian embassy--and Iran does not seem to want a big war, no matter how much Israel does.  

We are not going to out power these "enemies."  The world is changing. We should be trying to get along with them.  The more we continue to act like we run the world, the more isolated we will be.  That's what is making us feel less secure--and it's a real concern.  

First, Israel did not blow up the Iranian embassy.  Rather, it took out the consulate which housed the Quds force, an organization that has been labeled as terrorist by the US.  The Iranian embassy, which is next door, is still there and apparently not damaged (or not significantly damaged).  #factsmatter

Embassy / Consulate.  A distinction without a difference. 

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

I read the Vance essay.  It would be nice if people he would have explained what a negotiated solution might look like. I assume he means we should recognize Putin’s conquests, drop sanctions and get on with business but he didn’t say that. He didn’t say exactly what territorial adjustments would ultimately satisfy Putin. He seems to buy into the myth of Russian invincibility, conveniently ignoring the fact that if NATO had given Ukraine the kit they need, Russia would be unable to advance.  He ignored the fact that for Russia to win, the West must give up. In conclusion, if you believe rolling over and giving up when threatened will make us more secure, then J.D. is your man. 

If Vance, or anyone else claiming that they simply want to avoid war and end aggression were for real, they would be arguing for air defense and other defensive aid and against offensive aid. If they think Ukraine should give up territory for peace, that’s far  more likely to happen if Ukrainians feel safe in their free cities and that Russia will not steal more land.

You don’t see Vance arguing that. There’s no concessions he feels Russia must offer. There’s no aid or support he feels the U.S. should offer Ukraine. Because what he is arguing for is Ukrainian surrender. Russia is the aggressor, and he believes Russia should win. That’s a pro-war position.

dave said:

Embassy / Consulate.  A distinction without a difference. 

Actually, it is a substantial difference.  The embassy remains.  The consulate was used to house the Quds force leadership.  The consulate is a support facility that, in theory, serves frequently as a constituent services facility.  That was not what it was being used for in Damascus.

nan said:

Jaytee said:

Think about this for a moment. If Putin defeats Ukraine, Iran destroys Israel and China takes Taiwan by force, how secure would anyone in America feel then? All this mumbo jumbo is only fueling our enemies to destroy us ultimately. 
We must defend Israel and Ukraine right now. We can leave the infighting and differences aside for now. 

Putin has already defeated Ukraine and Taiwan is part of China and Israel just blew up an Iranian embassy--and Iran does not seem to want a big war, no matter how much Israel does.  

We are not going to out power these "enemies."  The world is changing. We should be trying to get along with them.  The more we continue to act like we run the world, the more isolated we will be.  That's what is making us feel less secure--and it's a real concern.  

I couldn't think of a measured way to respond to this.  To sum up the above(my interpretation) -

Jaytee: "China may try to take Taiwan by force."

Nan: "Who gives a f**k."

I'll use the words "ill-informed" and "unconscionable" to describe the substance of Ms. Nan's quoted response.

Steve said:

dave said:

Embassy / Consulate.  A distinction without a difference. 

Actually, it is a substantial difference.  The embassy remains.  The consulate was used to house the Quds force leadership.  The consulate is a support facility that, in theory, serves frequently as a constituent services facility.  That was not what it was being used for in Damascus.

In terms of discussing the gravity of the action, and the risks going in and expected consequences - there really isn't any difference.

tjohn said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

I read the Vance essay.  It would be nice if people he would have explained what a negotiated solution might look like. I assume he means we should recognize Putin’s conquests, drop sanctions and get on with business but he didn’t say that. He didn’t say exactly what territorial adjustments would ultimately satisfy Putin. He seems to buy into the myth of Russian invincibility, conveniently ignoring the fact that if NATO had given Ukraine the kit they need, Russia would be unable to advance.  He ignored the fact that for Russia to win, the West must give up. In conclusion, if you believe rolling over and giving up when threatened will make us more secure, then J.D. is your man. 

i.e. he repeated what Nan has been posting for two years

nohero said:

I couldn't think of a measured way to respond to this.  To sum up the above(my interpretation) -

Jaytee: "China may try to take Taiwan by force."

Nan: "Who gives a f**k."

I'll use the words "ill-informed" and "unconscionable" to describe the substance of Ms. Nan's quoted response.

but we’re the warmongers… at this point she’s just entertainment. 

nohero said:

Steve said:

dave said:

Embassy / Consulate.  A distinction without a difference. 

Actually, it is a substantial difference.  The embassy remains.  The consulate was used to house the Quds force leadership.  The consulate is a support facility that, in theory, serves frequently as a constituent services facility.  That was not what it was being used for in Damascus.

In terms of discussing the gravity of the action, and the risks going in and expected consequences - there really isn't any difference.

I very much disagree.  Taking out the building that was hosting the leadership/activities of a terrorist organization is very different than taking out the actual diplomatic headquarters.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

Ok, stay in your bubble. 

tjohn said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

I read the Vance essay.  It would be nice if people he would have explained what a negotiated solution might look like. I assume he means we should recognize Putin’s conquests, drop sanctions and get on with business but he didn’t say that. He didn’t say exactly what territorial adjustments would ultimately satisfy Putin. He seems to buy into the myth of Russian invincibility, conveniently ignoring the fact that if NATO had given Ukraine the kit they need, Russia would be unable to advance.  He ignored the fact that for Russia to win, the West must give up. In conclusion, if you believe rolling over and giving up when threatened will make us more secure, then J.D. is your man. 

So, you are fine with WWIII? That's the best idea?

PVW said:

If Vance, or anyone else claiming that they simply want to avoid war and end aggression were for real, they would be arguing for air defense and other defensive aid and against offensive aid. If they think Ukraine should give up territory for peace, that’s far  more likely to happen if Ukrainians feel safe in their free cities and that Russia will not steal more land.

You don’t see Vance arguing that. There’s no concessions he feels Russia must offer. There’s no aid or support he feels the U.S. should offer Ukraine. Because what he is arguing for is Ukrainian surrender. Russia is the aggressor, and he believes Russia should win. That’s a pro-war position.

He's not saying Russia should win.  He's saying Russia WON.  This is reality.  No amount of "super weapons" is going to change that.  The Ukrainians have run out of men--they are now sacrificing even younger.  I don't think the Ukrainians who live in Ukraine are so keen on continuing this disaster. They do not appreciate being dragged off the street and sent to the front line meat grinder.  Prolonging this is only going to assure more death and destruction.  

The only way this changes is WWIII and nuclear war.  Are you ready to sacrifice yourself and your family for Ukraine?  I hope not.  

nohero said:

nan said:

Jaytee said:

Think about this for a moment. If Putin defeats Ukraine, Iran destroys Israel and China takes Taiwan by force, how secure would anyone in America feel then? All this mumbo jumbo is only fueling our enemies to destroy us ultimately. 
We must defend Israel and Ukraine right now. We can leave the infighting and differences aside for now. 

Putin has already defeated Ukraine and Taiwan is part of China and Israel just blew up an Iranian embassy--and Iran does not seem to want a big war, no matter how much Israel does.  

We are not going to out power these "enemies."  The world is changing. We should be trying to get along with them.  The more we continue to act like we run the world, the more isolated we will be.  That's what is making us feel less secure--and it's a real concern.  

I couldn't think of a measured way to respond to this.  To sum up the above(my interpretation) -

Jaytee: "China may try to take Taiwan by force."

Nan: "Who gives a f**k."

I'll use the words "ill-informed" and "unconscionable" to describe the substance of Ms. Nan's quoted response.

I see what's happening in Ukraine and that's the blueprint for Taiwan, except we will be facing China.  Not a good idea for any of the parties involved.  Time to start using diplomacy instead of bombs. 

nan said:

I see what's happening in Ukraine and that's the blueprint for Taiwan, except we will be facing China.  Not a good idea for any of the parties involved.  Time to start using diplomacy instead of bombs. 

what universe do you live in? You think people should just give in to bullies because by your definition they are stronger and will just kill us all? Are you freakin even human?  If we had just left Hitler alone for the sake of peace all of us here would be arguing in the German language. 
Or you just would have preferred to drink Saki with your miso soup and sushi?

Jaytee said:

nan said:

I see what's happening in Ukraine and that's the blueprint for Taiwan, except we will be facing China.  Not a good idea for any of the parties involved.  Time to start using diplomacy instead of bombs. 

what universe do you live in? You think people should just give in to bullies because by your definition they are stronger and will just kill us all? Are you freakin even human?  If we had just left Hitler alone for the sake of peace all of us here would be arguing in the German language. 
Or you just would have preferred to drink Saki with your miso soup and sushi?

Hitler is not running China.  We cannot continue to think we can just boss people around.  The world has changed. We need to try diplomacy.  

nan said:

nohero said:

I couldn't think of a measured way to respond to this.  To sum up the above (my interpretation) -

Jaytee: "China may try to take Taiwan by force."

Nan: "Who gives a f**k."

I'll use the words "ill-informed" and "unconscionable" to describe the substance of Ms. Nan's quoted response.

I see what's happening in Ukraine and that's the blueprint for Taiwan, except we will be facing China.  Not a good idea for any of the parties involved.  Time to start using diplomacy instead of bombs. 

Yes, we all can see that there are people in the U.S. who are happy to hand the people of Ukraine over to Putin, and that's the blueprint for those same people in the U.S. who are happy to hand the people of Taiwan over to Xi Jinping. 

I should use much stronger language to describe people like that, but I'll stick with the measured way already there.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

Ok, stay in your bubble. 

sure. In the future I'll try to emulate your media consumption habits. I'm sure there's nothing bubble-like about them.

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

I couldn't think of a measured way to respond to this.  To sum up the above (my interpretation) -

Jaytee: "China may try to take Taiwan by force."

Nan: "Who gives a f**k."

I'll use the words "ill-informed" and "unconscionable" to describe the substance of Ms. Nan's quoted response.

I see what's happening in Ukraine and that's the blueprint for Taiwan, except we will be facing China.  Not a good idea for any of the parties involved.  Time to start using diplomacy instead of bombs. 

Yes, we all can see that there are people in the U.S. who are happy to hand the people of Ukraine over to Putin, and that's the blueprint for those same people in the U.S. who are happy to hand the people of Taiwan over to Xi Jinping. 

I should use much stronger language to describe people like that, but I'll stick with the measured way already there.

Yes, we can see that there are people in the U.S. who are happy to live in a delusional bubble where the U.S. is in charge of the world and only a force for fairness and democracy.  For these people, only the US knows the right way to run a country and any leader we don't like is called Hitler and any person who does not agree with us must be a traitorous spy or worse. These people say they are for peace, but they support multiple, endless wars that kill millions and will eventually bankrupt the US empire. 

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

Ok, stay in your bubble. 

sure. In the future I'll try to emulate your media consumption habits. I'm sure there's nothing bubble-like about them.

Ok, well you can start now by reading the J.D. Vance op ed.  It's in the New York Times, which is a drummerboy approved periodical.  It's not like I'm starting you off with the Duran or Max Blumenthal. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

Ok, stay in your bubble. 

sure. In the future I'll try to emulate your media consumption habits. I'm sure there's nothing bubble-like about them.

Ok, well you can start now by reading the J.D. Vance op ed.  It's in the New York Times, which is a drummerboy approved periodical.  It's not like I'm starting you off with the Duran or Max Blumenthal. 

I've got a years old thread complaining about the NYT's political coverage. The original title contained the words "A force for evil".

Other than the fact the Vance article is important because it's written by a sitting senator, what does it add to the discourse? Anything new? Anything that you or paul hasn't already posted a gazillion times? I read things to learn things.What would I learn?

nan said:

tjohn said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

I read the Vance essay.  It would be nice if people he would have explained what a negotiated solution might look like. I assume he means we should recognize Putin’s conquests, drop sanctions and get on with business but he didn’t say that. He didn’t say exactly what territorial adjustments would ultimately satisfy Putin. He seems to buy into the myth of Russian invincibility, conveniently ignoring the fact that if NATO had given Ukraine the kit they need, Russia would be unable to advance.  He ignored the fact that for Russia to win, the West must give up. In conclusion, if you believe rolling over and giving up when threatened will make us more secure, then J.D. is your man. 

So, you are fine with WWIII? That's the best idea?

There's quite a distance between given Ukraine the kit they need for self-defense (air defense, artillery) and WW III.

You know what else leads to a bad outcome.  Giving ground until you have no more to give and then having no choice but to fight.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what being "anti-war" means.

nan said:

nohero said:

Yes, we all can see that there are people in the U.S. who are happy to hand the people of Ukraine over to Putin, and that's the blueprint for those same people in the U.S. who are happy to hand the people of Taiwan over to Xi Jinping. 

I should use much stronger language to describe people like that, but I'll stick with the measured way already there.

Yes, we can see that there are people in the U.S. who are happy to live in a delusional bubble where the U.S. is in charge of the world and only a force for fairness and democracy.  For these people, only the US knows the right way to run a country and any leader we don't like is called Hitler and any person who does not agree with us must be a traitorous spy or worse. These people say they are for peace, but they support multiple, endless wars that kill millions and will eventually bankrupt the US empire. 

Preferring that the people of Ukraine and Taiwan just hurry up and die or surrender is not "anti-war".

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

Ok, stay in your bubble. 

sure. In the future I'll try to emulate your media consumption habits. I'm sure there's nothing bubble-like about them.

Ok, well you can start now by reading the J.D. Vance op ed.  It's in the New York Times, which is a drummerboy approved periodical.  It's not like I'm starting you off with the Duran or Max Blumenthal. 

I've got a years old thread complaining about the NYT's political coverage. The original title contained the words "A force for evil".

Other than the fact the Vance article is important because it's written by a sitting senator, what does it add to the discourse? Anything new? Anything that you or paul hasn't already posted a gazillion times? I read things to learn things.What would I learn?

If you really wanted to learn, you would have read the piece instead of throwing such a fit about who wrote it.  Have to wonder what's behind that but time to move on. Vance's op ed does say the kinds of things Paul and I have been saying since the beginning of this war with fresh details (and some stuff about Taiwan I would never say).  What's interesting is that the New York Times, which has been presenting mostly false propaganda, suddenly allowed someone to state some basic truths and to admit this war is a catastrophic failure.  

This is a big shift, but I don't know what that means. Could be the Ukraine project is on the way out and they are starting to prepare the new narrative.  Could be another reason.  Whatever, it's probably not positive news for the big Ukraine supporters who cling to the Putin is Hitler and he invaded Democratic Ukraine unprovoked story.  They have, not surprisingly, pushed back with lots of articles/videos on how Vance's math is what's wrong.  I'm sure we will soon see these rebuttals posted on MOL by people who probably never read the original op ed. 

nan said:

He's not saying Russia should win.  He's saying Russia WON.

Then why is Russia still attacking Ukraine?

PVW said:

Then why is Russia still attacking Ukraine?

and so many women in Russia are begging Putin to let them know where their husbands and sons are…after seeing so many funerals of soldiers.

PVW said:

nan said:

He's not saying Russia should win.  He's saying Russia WON.

Then why is Russia still attacking Ukraine?

Because Ukraine is not giving up.  They are now mobilizing younger men so they can continue the meat grinder.  This is not unusual in war.  Biden is up for election and it would not look good for him to lose so they are dragging it out. Some think the Ukraine government is at the point of collapse, but I don't know about that.  There have been a lot of shake-ups and people leaving.  

The Russians want to demilitarize Ukraine -- this was not about taking territory--so they can just hang out and demilitarize some more while slowly taking more land.  So far Zelensky is saying they will only negotiate for pre-Crimea boarders but he's not in a position to demand that so no negotiations for now.  Have no idea when and how this will end. 

Jaytee said:

PVW said:

Then why is Russia still attacking Ukraine?

and so many women in Russia are begging Putin to let them know where their husbands and sons are…after seeing so many funerals of soldiers.

As reported where?   I'm sure there are lots of Russian casualties--but a lot more for Ukraine.  

nohero said:

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what being "anti-war" means.

nan said:

nohero said:

Yes, we all can see that there are people in the U.S. who are happy to hand the people of Ukraine over to Putin, and that's the blueprint for those same people in the U.S. who are happy to hand the people of Taiwan over to Xi Jinping. 

I should use much stronger language to describe people like that, but I'll stick with the measured way already there.

Yes, we can see that there are people in the U.S. who are happy to live in a delusional bubble where the U.S. is in charge of the world and only a force for fairness and democracy.  For these people, only the US knows the right way to run a country and any leader we don't like is called Hitler and any person who does not agree with us must be a traitorous spy or worse. These people say they are for peace, but they support multiple, endless wars that kill millions and will eventually bankrupt the US empire. 

Preferring that the people of Ukraine and Taiwan just hurry up and die or surrender is not "anti-war".

Typical out of context characterization of what I said. I don't want to see any of these people die--especially while being used in a proxy war planned to bring down Russia/China.  That's what these wars are about, not democracy.  The sacrifice of the Ukrainian people is a huge tragedy.  I'm hoping the people of Taiwan watch and learn and don't let that happen to them. 

You want them to fight to the last person against a military that can beat them with one hand tied behind it's back. 

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

He's not saying Russia should win.  He's saying Russia WON.

Then why is Russia still attacking Ukraine?

Because Ukraine is not giving up.  They are now mobilizing younger men so they can continue the meat grinder.  This is not unusual in war.  Biden is up for election and it would not look good for him to lose so they are dragging it out. Some think the Ukraine government is at the point of collapse, but I don't know about that.  There have been a lot of shake-ups and people leaving.  

The Russians want to demilitarize Ukraine -- this was not about taking territory--so they can just hang out and demilitarize some more while slowly taking more land.  So far Zelensky is saying they will only negotiate for pre-Crimea boarders but he's not in a position to demand that so no negotiations for now.  Have no idea when and how this will end. 

If Ukraine won’t give up, and Russia hasn’t achieved what it wants, then in what way has Russia already won?