whYNOT

"Now or never".  Academic Geoffrey Roberts. Written sometime last year, but still relevant and his logical telling of known facts is enhanced by recent events and revelations. Putin, apparently, did not seek war.
The orchestrated position that Putin was trapped in: act "now" (with preemptive, preventative and protective, initially - limited - force), or Crimea and Donbas, then Russia, would have to inevitably confront overwhelming attacks from the strengthened and enlarged Ukraine-NATO forces a little later. But critical he should be depicted to the masses as the first aggressor, Kyiv the innocent victim...
https://jmss.org/article/view/76584/56335
 
 
 
 
 

Sanctions, embargoes and the like, are the weapons of statism, like wars are. They don't work in practice and only hurt the poorest people who (in theory) are supposed to react by rising up against their rulers at their own possible sacrifice. Much of the time the sanctioned country adapts to and replaces their losses, learns to manufacture their own products and finds covert ways to import and export commodities. Sanctions are a collectivist punishment against a citizen of another state which hasn't the approval of this group of wealthier, more powerful, "democratic" governments-states, acting in collusion. Just as properly one individual or a company ought to be doing business with another in a foreign land by their own choice, uninterfered with by his government's trade regulations, etc. - if he later so chooses not to, he cannot "sanction" that ex-partner (nor "go to war" with them), he simply ends the deal. The "blowback" from sanctions on Russia onto the people, industries and businesses around the world who depended on the markets in and supplies from Russia, is slowly sinking in economically and financially. We are being hurt more than Russians are, so sanctions are sacrificial of individuals even outside Russia, so are immoral.

Short memories people have, and how msm can spin on a dime for 'expediency'. Their names reel off: Reuters, BBC, CNN...These same Ukraine neo-Nazis who in 2014 were condemned widely by them, are now celebrated in Congress/Parliament/etc.. You are promoting Putin's propaganda to point out this glaring lapse. Some are asking if a lot of Westerners recently became 'nazified' by association/conviction.
https://open.substack.com/pub/askeptic/p/the-msms-ukraine-amnesia?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
 
 

A few things. I know how street interviews are done, I did many on the papers. Good journalists will look for a mix of opinions to be printed and aired. Dishonest ones will not, and will cut the interviews short or edit out unfavorable comments. "Polo"
The idea is to create the perception of a monolithic opposition (here against Putin) - or of support - by publishing only the one side. Who hopefully give the impression of 'representing' the whole society. There will always be dissent, to be welcomed. (The West could use some). Russians are like people everywhere, some thinking things through better, some going on their emotions, some automatic, anti-war pacifists, some simply don't like Putin's mannerism's and appearance, some more pro-West, some malcontents, and on and on. You have x millions of citizens, only 20% in opposition is a lot of people.
Such individual opinions are interesting but tell nothing. Linked here, the idea by AL must be to indicate Putin's unpopularity. He does not believe the 80% approval number touted. Perhaps inflated - but so what? A majority can be all wrong and a minority might be right. And the reverse. One can't make moral judgments on "approval" figures.

What - when the UAF was then, the Number 2 most formidable military force in Europe (behind Russia's Army)? One that was being expanded, trained and equipped "to Nato standards"?
Most implausible. Those activities could not go unnoticed for those years.
Moscow would be closely following events in Ukraine, and be well aware, via intel, agents, etc. of the strength they had. And so the "demilitirization" Putin insisted upon. (A condition he relaxed, in Bennett's account).
Putin's plan nearly came off, and it was as worthwhile effort - if it were left mano a mano. Zelensky was twice that we know of ready to talk turkey, maybe to make a settlement. He was not permitted, outside interference, to make the choice.
After those abortive attempts, for some reason he turned into an anti-Russian fanatic.
Underestimated, certainly, was the ferocious response by Nato, weapons pouring in, the coordinated psy-ops and propaganda warfare that posed the 'invasion' as an intended Russian conquest of all Ukraine (and beyond, Europe!). Which apparently motivated the army, some of which are fanatical Russian haters, in a ferocious fight for the West's Cause. 

"Humanitarian" assistance to Ukraine, was the original sales pitch by the West to the ignorant, easily influenced public.
Of course, who could argue with helping out the citizens of Ukraine?
The switch to "lethal aid" went widely unquestioned.
In the light of incessant bombardment of the Donbass towns, entering its tenth year, to which zero attention, Western humanitarian aid or public outcry has been drawn. By donated, elusive, precision Himars missile systems, btw. Where is the outrage now? Since the invasion, shelling only increased, and this is not "collateral damage" to be clear, this is the daily, directed killing and terrorizing of Ukrainian (now Russian) civilians that has claimed several thousand casualties this past year alone. It will end when the UAF is pushed out of the region.
Okay when the West brings "humanitarian"/lethal aid, not okay when it's Russia that sends in a rescue mission to protect ethic Russian civilians.
 
https://www.rt.com/russia/575224-donetsk-ukraine-shelling-civilians/

Is it your claim that the greater casualties were of the Russians?
Answer yes/no: if yes, bring evidence and proof. 
No matter, as things collapse, the lies are being exposed daily. Expect a flood of denouncement, accusations, cover-ups and recriminations. Sour grapes, in short. You and the indoctrinated believers will become superfluous to the debate in six months.
Why the obsession with numbers? It's interesting that "numbers" - polls and casualty statistics - indicate the immorality, or otherwise, of the conflict's opposing sides, and matter so much to many. I have seen their - specifically Ukraine supporters -  celebrations. I.e. if 'we' kill more of them, we are in the right. If we are victorious we are moral. The determinist-skeptics' ethics by numerology. These are each and all human beings, any death is sorrowful.

https://ending-nuclear-weapons.org/Ukraine/Gov-Lies-about-Ukraine-war.html

Austin playing to the choir. Fine words to conceal one fact - without Nato in the frame - nothing would have happened. Left alone, Kyiv and Moscow could have settled matters (e.g. the abusive treatment to Russ-Ukraianians, Ukraine's neutrality) peaceably between themselves as sensible neighbors.
"Imperial aggression" by Russia has been done to death. Its purpose, broad alarmist indoctrination to get everybody acquiescent, naturally.
It's a falsehood that is born out by subsequent events. The alacrity with which Putin accepted PM Bennett's peace initiative (a few weeks in) declares Putin's intentions were for a swift diplomatic resolution with his 'SMO' show of force. Amid all the other later Russian invitations to negotiate, brutally nipped in the bud by the militant West.
Because the Russian armed forces initially exercised great restraint, (by the West's standards of warfare) and were anyway vastly undermanned for an "imperialist" conquest, - but mainly I believe exactly because of those early Russian proposals to talk compromise - Nato, the EU etc. leapt to the conclusion that Putin was weak or bluffing and Russia had no heart for a war: "therefore, "We and Ukraine and can beat him!". An easy victory? Famous last words. For which blunder of calculation and the cynicism in pressing Ukraine to fight to its destruction, all governments involved need to be held accountable.
Like weak people and bullies are prone to, the presumption that another's self-restraint is a sign of weakness - not of strength and confidence or of good will -  to be exploited or attacked.
Rhetoric too from Stoltenberg. His bluster while the conflict still rages that Ukraine will soon get its Nato membership was only designed to ensure that Russia realizes that nothing less than a total victory, surrender, a greater territorial incursion into Ukraine (to create a buffer zone outside the range of missiles and terror assaults) and hard peace terms will suffice. They logically cannot accept less than an agreement permanently denying the remaining (Western) Ukraine its Nato entry and demanding lasting security guarantees. Russia did not launch an invasion to still have Nato's malevolent power on its new doorstep.
Nothing new from the West - Stoltenberg has condemned Ukraine to more losses. Cannot be repeated too often that this all could have been averted at the start by decent, thinking actors, who could identify the problems objectively and foresee the almost inevitable, dreadful outcomes.

There is quite some truth here. It appeared strongly to me, after considering many sightings and articles, that many Objectivists reacted to Trump in the same way as did all his other opponents at large.
Viscerally.
Ad hominems to the man, less his doings.
Feelings as tools of cognition.
And then justified their initial reactions with "his economic nationalism"; etc. etc.
Objective standards, I must add, which were not as rigorously or hardly applied to previous incumbents.

My god. Even from where I sit I know something about the moderate nature of the DNC back then - and what they are now.
This is a different kind of beast.
"How can they be voted out?"
Count the ways.
As of now,
Almost total control of the mainstream media
Almost total control of ideology through education, colleges, universities
Total control of social media platforms
A vaster reservoir of wealth through Silicon Valley and Leftist billionaires
Almost total control of the movie industry--
What there exists already, is a "totalitarian" grip upon propaganda and of people's speech and minds.
Add in the latest developments: almost total power. A tight hold on: The US Congress; The Executive; and eventually "packing" the Supreme Court as they are looking towards.
There can be little limit on moving as radical Left as they can. They crave control. These are not people who take, nor will take, democratic defeat graciously.
To ask again. HOW are they, with everything stacked in their favor - and open immigration on the cards, bringing in further favorable voters - and making Washington DC another (Dem stronghold) state - ever going to be voted out?
 
 
 
 
 
 

"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.

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.
 
 
 

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

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.

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.

Here's another interesting article:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-chief-belatedly-admits-war-didnt-start-february-last-year-war-started-2014

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...

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...

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

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