whYNOT

"Ret. Gen. Keith Kellogg, ex-advisor to Mike Pence, says it's the "acme of professionalism" to use Ukraine to fight Russia because that "takes a strategic adversary off the table" without "using any US troops." And then "we can focus" on "our primary adversary, which is China."" https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1631390869487067136 There is a longer game than Ukraine for many. It's time "the simplest hypothesis" was taken off the table. With (devious/self-serving/hypocritical) human behavior the superficially ostensive explanation is seldom correct. The "defense of innocent Ukraine" self-justification for beefing up the military by Nato from 2014-on was always 'made for Prime Time' viewing, mass propaganda. It was *necessary* for Russia to take the bait and enter, to play its part in the game. Kellogg indicates, and Romney said similarly recently that Ukraine/Russia was a side-show, designed to tie up and bleed Russia indefinitely, the longer the better, to be a build-up for the main event, China. As the facts trickle in, the warmongers show their inhumane and calculated premises by the cynical exploitation of Ukrainians. About the ongoing decimation of Ukrainian troops - after Kyiv was dissuaded from negotiations many times - not a primary concern. As long as it's not Western soldiers dying. Putin is constantly being validated in wanting to keep Ukraine Nato-free for Russia's extended security, he understood their intention and Nato's nature. He's more rational, observing and far-seeing than is widely given credit.

"sufficient ground for readers to ignore" is the tell-tale sign of propagandists. Nothing to see here. Shoot the messenger - before he reads the message. Those figures don't have to be accurate in order to raise doubt for critical thinkers. It's not in doubt that Ukraine and other analysts have been falsifying casualties for the last year. Proper experts have been making similar estimates to the above, called the rate about 7-1 in combat losses. While TV pundits claim Russia losses at anything up to 200k. Fact is, the RF generals are extremely conservative in risking or losing their men, discount anything you hear about "human wave" assaults. Ukraine military plays to international head lines, and take massive losses. The necessity for Ukraine/the West to magnify/minimize casualties, should be clear. Ukraine needed a morale boost to carry on fighting (for the West). The same way, every Ukraine advance and Russian tactical retreat in the field was heralded as the certain, coming victory for Ukraine--when the reality was and is slowly dawning, the UAF cannot chase Russia out. Now reports are coming out that men, young and old are being pulled from the streets to be thrown into the line. Authentic, green "conscripts", unlike the Russian conscripts who all have had to take one year military training. Lacking propagandist lies, Ukraine would have learned the truth and committed to negotiations early on. It is the callousness of pro-Ukraine zealots I cannot fathom. "Beating/weakening Russia" is paramount to them, but at whose costs? Anyone who is against negotiations - who wants the war to prolong til that remote possibility - can't pretend to be compassionate of Ukrainians, simply they are hateful of Russians. One more self-contradiction.

"A lie will not fit anything except another lie". (Did I see someone citing Article 51? That has been rejected in the West, when, coincidentally, the identical Article was cited by Putin when asked to intervene in their defense by Luhansk and Donetsk. Rules for me but not for you?

That's something of an m. o. by Israel, to sneak in controversial items through minor channels. Sometimes it gets picked up by the big agencies and distributed to the main media. But don't hold your breath waiting for BBC etc. to admit these casualty numbers. They know this info for sure, but won't tell. If I see anything more I'll deliver.

Yes, that could be a reasonable cover story, Stoltenberg would (pretend to) have it so. His actions say otherwise. "We were early on preparing Ukraine for its defense and to deter Russia..." - in effect All PR fluff for the underinformed and misinformed public and his memoirs. This innocent scenario conceals Nato's longstanding aims for Russia. Surround, isolate, weaken, break up. Ukraine, just a convenient pawn to enable that goal -- by giving Putin no choice but to deploy over the border in what he regarded - as any leader would - his country's pre-emptive defense. With the benefit of hindsight (Minsk exploited for delay- etc.) we know without doubt this Nato-enlarged army had as first priority, the defeat of the Donbass. Does this appear 'defensive'? Observers are sure and it is logical, Crimea would have been attacked next. Does this seem a 'deterrent'? The monstrous fact is that Nato ¬needed¬ Russia to attack: it had to be provoked into a confrontation with the UAF. And simultaneously for Kyiv to appear the innocent victim, backed by the ever-so concerned Nato. Look at all the diplomatic opportunities squandered and actively prevented, pre-invasion until the very dangerous present, by those who really call the shots, the West. Here is proof of Kyiv's and Nato's malign militarism. They are still telling themselves and fantasizing: a. Russia can/will lose b. Russia will yet collapse under the military, economic and political strain. Just keep supplying, escalating, and getting Ukrainans killed. Decent and reasonable people can't absorb how much they have been media-indoctrinated and taken in by the pretexts, duplicity and hypocrisy of those like Stoltenberg. In summary, such respectable-looking and 'caring' bureaucrats have sacrificed Ukraine for their geo-political, geo-economic ends. (And again, what was Nato even doing, involved inside Ukraine, by what right? Nato has rules about not admitting any nation that's in conflict. Kyiv had already shown its undemocratic propensities, the violently engineered divisions in its people, its corruption, some western-acknowledged and (not long ago) officially condemned neo-Fascist elements, and so on. By any rational standard Ukraine was a long way from proper Nato-membership status. But yet, Nato not only did not rebuff Kyiv, since 2014 at least it is has been supplying and supporting and anticipating larger conflict for its (contra-Russia) purposes. Putin was correct to fear Ukraine's accession--with what Nato's been visibly doing with Ukraine as a NON-member, imagine their provocative actions from within Ukraine, when/if it is admitted. Nato broke its own rules, as it is presently. One self-contradiction among many.

Mossad, Israeli intelligence is not given to embellishing reality. This table has emerged from them recently. Respective casualties spouted by media figures, exaggerated and falsified to celebrate how effectively "our boys" are defeating Russia and killing Russians, have been the singular driver of continuing hostilities: when you are 'winning' the casualty count you won't sue for peace, just keep sending more men into the "grinder" and keep despatching more weapons, prolonging war; needlessly, a much greater number of Ukraine soldiers died and are today dying and injured in consequence of the (western) propagandists' big Lies. Mossad figures, according to «Hürseda Haber»

https://mronline.org/2023/02/06/theyre-not-worried-about-russian-influence-theyre-worried-about-dissent/

A "forgotten war"? Very little news coverage and documentaries made it out of the Donbass, '14 to '22, as I'm always mentioning. Considering its locale and who were the principals, the seeds of a larger and dangerous conflict were planted then, and few outsiders were allowed to be aware. An informal poll confirms my impression on the deliberate media silence. More clearly now, by various revelations by actors made since, the civil war was downplayed by the Press in concert with the powers that be for a purpose, the main one clearly being that when Putin did invade, predictably and without many options, the fiction must be received and maintained worldwide it was an impulsive act of insane brutality and 'imperialism'. Rather than more plausibly, in part motive, a sort of rescue mission of hostages, to stop the long illicit war waged by Kyiv upon Russ-Ukraine citizens (denied 'equal' rights or representation). As known in Feb '22 and confirmed lately, Kyiv was about to intensify the battle and certainly overwhelm them with a greatly more powerful, Nato-built, UAF. For a taste of the hard conditions, in 2019. One of the few doccies I've seen that made it out:

Seymour Hersh on the Brand show

These guys are so self-unaware they hang themselves unwittingly by their own virtue-signaling admissions. 8 years in advance Stoltenberg -somehow - knew the necessity of preparing a Ukraine military for war, either he's a prophet, or NATO had foul intentions and ambitions all along. Certainly not displaying the slightest intent to avert or defuse what could be the most dangerous war ever. The opposite. Sure enough, Minsk, which next followed was made a mockery of. Apparently Putin was the sole dupe who bought into its implementation to end the conflict. Zelensky also told Der Spiegel recently he had no intention of fulfilling his campaign promises for Eastern peace. Therefore, totaling four leaders (so far) who cheated and lied, with many more 'world leaders' who tacitly knew what was going on, and were complicit in the upcoming murders and/or evacuation of Donbass residents from Ukraine, and to bringing in Russia. They got their anticipated war, I trust they choke on it. Putin's use of preemptive force was rational and legal, whatever the UN Charter states on the matter. When all signs point to one is about to be struck one is entitled to the self-protection to strike first - here, the rightful responsibility to the safety of one's own people or others in danger . (Self-defense for just about any favored country, barring Russia, that is). And given the strong NATO militirization now admitted to, one can understand his demand for a de-militirized Ukraine--and further cause for stipulating a de-Nato-ized Ukraine. There are some who can grasp the factual-causal content of "implications". Many especially on the fanatical pro-Ukraine side seem blind to them. Maybe that's one dividing line.

For the "Russian Empire!" skeptics, the full Bennett interview reveals how much Putin was ready to concede for a resolution. Here: https://youtu.be/ZpCTEBaTFS8 "Bucha" was a most convenient event, coming very soon after and during those negotiations about negotiations. Too convenient. There were certainly factions who wanted to go ahead with war, domestic or foreign. What better than an Azov-committed, MI6-conceived false flag atrocity to raise outrage and promote conflict? Even accepting Bucha's doubtful veracity, the collective West still had *zero* rights interfering in a peace deal, nor using Bucha as a weak excuse. These were cynical/immoral interventions which - any fool could predict - have eventuated in losing, not dozens, 100's of thousands of lives, and all the rest. If the West was so concerned about Ukraine civilians (or future atrocities), all the more reason to back the potential peace accords. And have avoided 'punishing' Russians by punishing Ukrainians. Anyhow, they well know by now that Ukraine's atrocities far outnumber Russians, and covered up for them. An "atrocity" is when the enemy commits it, apparently. This argument doesn't wash at any level. Not to distract from the big takeaway -- Bennett reveals Putin/Zelensky were amenable to compromises to end the fighting in the first days of invasion. Especially Putin. It -might- have stopped right then. An interview I only find on a few back channels Let's see if NYT and CNN cover that story...

A reminder, this train of events didn't have to happen. Not once, but twice was the start of positive negotiations nipped in the bud. In April by Boris, and here as early as March '22. Putin had reduced his demands to gain traction for a peaceful resolution.

From an essay by Bruce Fein about Robert Kagan. (John Q Adam's vision, as pertinent as it is today. Absolutely--"the benignant sympathy of her example"--that is all we elsewhere need). "Further, Kagan maintains, emancipating foreign nations from the Dark Ages is the optimal path to optimal democracy, liberty, and prosperity in the United States. He has no moment for Secretary of State John Quincy Adams’ July 4, 1821, address to Congress expounding the foreign policy of the United States contrary to Kagan’s gospel: “Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.” The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….”" JQA

I've debated this exact point often to myself. Is this worth it? For what little it might achieve with an unknown few readers, out there? I decided it is, for this war and what may follow, mankind is too important to not take efforts to preserve. Observing the rampant subjectivity everywhere, especially among our 'world leaders', who better than objectivists to bring fresh thinking to the stale conformity, authoritarianism, emotionalism and determinism? Maybe with allies (and others I find in odd parts of the internet), the word can spread to encourage the many to stand and fight back also. Tell them: It does not have to be this way.

When in doubt, psychologize. Now we are both gonna get booted off, Jon. Unfamiliar with conceptual methods, they are. To conform here you need to endlessly pick over each piece of data - or fly off into rationalism, neither being conceptual, the integrated sum of scores of facts.

Too bad for your kind. I have seen your methods, chum, trying to stifle or divert from new evidence and argument. Every time. Are you paid by someone to propagandize for warmongers on this forum?

You are right, don't allow these rationalized objections throw you off. The article showing a large increase in shelling days before the invasion is officially true, known at the time by many outside the mainstream, and your moral take is just. The Ukr-NATO psy-ops people, in preparation for the war they wanted, realized it's critical for Russia to throw the first blow, or be SEEN to do so. The unthinking public, obviously, must only know what it's told: the war started Feb 24. Nothing was going on before that, freeze your minds right there. "Unjustified and unprovoked" was a prepared response, justifying the prepared, instant sanctions on Russia. They knew with certainty - they understood and exploited his values - that a mounting fresh assault on the Donbass would entice and motivate Putin to enter soon. (As I've argued, Putin would know the threats to the Russia-owned Crimea, the well-being of people in Crimea and Donbass, and naturally - to the security of Russia's adjacent borders. Legally right or wrong, one can argue all day-- Putin was morally right. Of course with Putin/Russians already viewed with contempt by longstanding indoctrination, all this was carefully orchestrated to nullify the Russian-Ukrainians and their plight (who had heard of the civil war, Minsk, etc., in the West before '22?), in order to not attract any sympathy for them. Especially - for 'evil' Putin never to be publicly seen as greatly motivated by humanitarian impulses! So the propagandist shills for the neocons came up with "Empire!" and the rest.

Within minutes, I predicted, up pops the western propaganda troll. To again distract, impede and obfuscate debate. Even to insist on posters' removal.

Chemical weapons https://youtu.be/Wn9V41asoxs

If there is a more comprehensive/objective/impartial report/analysis available, I'd like to see it. Everything you question or wanted to know, fairly up to date, cleared of the propaganda fog. (I'd only debate their war outcome prognosis). The good old Swiss neutrality has its worth: https://swprs.org/the-ukraine-war-in-2023/

Only watched half, finding this geopolitical conversation informative

Tanks, but no tanks? Biden's pivot. https://sonar21.com/bidens-back-to-the-future-moment-as-the-media-revises-its-ukraine-narrative/

"NATO has also indirectly gone to war against Russia. US Brigadier General Joseph E. Hilbert argued that “the worst thing the Russians did was give us eight years to prepare.”" G. Diesen

One can't reason with someone who won't reason. Can you not deduce anything? You have seen the evidence for: A. The confessed deceitfulness of western participants in the Minsk accords - to gain time for the UAF to be strengthened. B. the sabotage in 2022 by the Western powers of the Turkey-sponsored negotiations (between Ukraine and Russia). C. the sabotage in 2022 by the Western powers of the Israel-sponsored negotiations, (etc). and more that hasn't been made public so far. Anyone who might think realizes by their acts that Kyiv and its Nato/EU backers were *planning* to get into a war - and nothing would stop them (self-evidently). Peace? No chance. War against whom? I repeat, and it is irrefutable: against the Donbass and Crimea and inevitably, Russia, in their - and its own - defense. If Putin had not interfered at that point, he would have HAD to, very soon afterwards. The inhabitants of Donbass and Crimea would have suffered the vicious punishment we know Kyiv and its neo-Nazi forces are capable of. This before or after red herring I won't be bothered with proving - you deny and evade whatever you are presented. Suffice to say, the US assisted Maidan coup and a new regime, was the beginning of the troubles that raised the very real threat to Russia of losing its only warm water naval base (and plainly why it annexed Crimea), and the civil war--and so on .

Yet another peace negotiation was prevented last year. Ex Israel PM Bennett reveals.