The Ukraine - This Ain't No Board Game Of RISK...!


Selene

Recommended Posts

Jerry Biggers wrote:

Watch the MSM start changing their tune when they realize that Obama will do nothing to stop Putin's moves to reacquire some or all of the Soviet Union's republics. Suddenly, the Ministry of Truth (MSM) will "redefine" the issue as Russia going to the aid of those unfortunate Russians now oppressed by the Ukrainians (with the same process reoccurring in Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc., etc.)

end quote

There was a move to include Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and others in NATO. Are talks still on the way? If Putin wants it to be 1962 all over again, how are our offensive and defensive nuclear capabilities? What could we do economically? It’s too late to boycott the Olympics as did President Carter. I heard some of our NATO allies like Turkey are very upset over the NEW Soviet’s moves. Any predictions? Will Putin destroy the Ukraine as a political state? Will he march onward to other portions of the old Soviet Union as Jerry has said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Francisco asked:

The fundamental question is what principle would the U.S. be attempting to uphold in taking action against Putin's government? If the principle is that a group of people should be allowed to determine their own political destiny without interference from a major military power, then the U.S. would do well to examine its own record and present policies.

end quote

Are you an American? I don’t know. Would you ever use force in retaliation, if it is to support an ally? I am assuming you will be in sync with our government protecting the rights of an American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry Biggers wrote:

Watch the MSM start changing their tune when they realize that Obama will do nothing to stop Putin's moves to reacquire some or all of the Soviet Union's republics. Suddenly, the Ministry of Truth (MSM) will "redefine" the issue as Russia going to the aid of those unfortunate Russians now oppressed by the Ukrainians (with the same process reoccurring in Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc., etc.)

end quote

There was a move to include Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and others in NATO. Are talks still on the way? If Putin wants it to be 1962 all over again, how are our offensive and defensive nuclear capabilities? What could we do economically? It’s too late to boycott the Olympics as did President Carter. I heard some of our NATO allies like Turkey are very upset over the NEW Soviet’s moves. Any predictions? Will Putin destroy the Ukraine as a political state? Will he march onward to other portions of the old Soviet Union as Jerry has said?

Will the Mets win 90 games?

Will Cruz make it through the season for the Baltimore Orioles without getting busted for PEDS?

A world of unanswerable questions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to Objectivist Living Eva.

Eva mentioned, as important historical background, the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus, the German occupation of the Sudetenland, the British hold on Ulster, and the Zionist presence in Palestine. And there is the fact that the US is in a lot of countries around the world . . . as protectors. There is a difference between being a buffer against tyranny and invasion, but your point is well taken.

Eva wrote:

In other words, people want to form their own government based on ethnicity all of the time, thereby creating smaller minorities within the new borders.

end quote

I don’t disagree. The Ukraine is too short lived to be completely likened to the American Civil War to save the union, as was required in the US Constitution. Though some disagree even today. George H. Smith wrote in a view contrary to mine about America:

. . . . If we accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if we insist that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if we condemn as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate.

end quote

I don’t think a legitimate government that protects individual rights needs the constant consent of the governed. It is still moral if it is founded on individual rights, as was ours. The Ukraine exists as do most of the people who might have originally consented or declined to be part of The Ukraine. (Unlike The United States of America where they are dead.) So the Ukraine is starting at the mid-point of a legitimate, working, “State,” even if it is a young entity. So what if there is no unanimous consent as with their ethnically Russian minority? Does a government need constant consent to morally continue to be in existence? Does that justify an invasion? I say no.

Eva predicted an eastern Crimea surviving but with the west breaking up and re-integrating into Russia. And, “Therefore the Americans can do nothing because east+Crimean sentiment is so passionately pro-Russian--a fact that takes precedence over the understanding that Putin is a thug.”

Well said. You may be right, but time will tell - perhaps a very short time will tell.

Eva wrote:

In other words, he did what he was able to do ...

end quote

Very insightful. You aptly describe him as a thug who will do whatever he is able to do. Since Putin stepped in during our war of words with Syria I have been expecting the reemergence of Russian dictatorship and *might*. Unfortunately, Putin is not an old man. I wonder if there is a chance Russians will once again rebel against tyranny? Well, there was "Pussy Riot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam complained in a nice way about, "A world of unanswerable questions..." Sorry, first man. I am in a questioning mood which is rare for me, Mr. full speed ahead. The Ukraine is a very nuanced situation and I have my combat helmet near at hand. Is this a situation like the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand? The Blitz? Pearl Harbor? We have a lot of NATO allies in that area and we will defend them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a lot of NATO allies in that area and we will defend them.

Will this administration defend Poland?

And what will they defend with?

I think this is a very serious and precarious crisis.

The problem is that the tiny President made a pivot to Asia? Really? With what?

I joked because it is that serious.

I do not believe this is a Guns of August scenario though.

I cannot think of an historical power model that quite fits this one.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Location of Ukraine Ground Forces brigades
Red – infantry, Green – mechanised
Gold – armoured, Brown – artillery, Pink – rocket

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, a large number of the previous Soviet mechanised formations on Ukrainian soil have been disbanded – the IISS says totals have dropped from 14 divisions, in 1992, to two divisions, six brigades, and one independent regiment in 2008.[18] Today, all mechanised and armoured formations are called brigades. However, some former divisions remain near division strength.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Ground_Forces

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Welcome to Objectivist Living Eva.

Eva mentioned, as important historical background, the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus, the German occupation of the Sudetenland, the British hold on Ulster, and the Zionist presence in Palestine. And there is the fact that the US is in a lot of countries around the world . . . as protectors. There is a difference between being a buffer against tyranny and invasion, but your point is well taken.

Eva wrote:

In other words, people want to form their own government based on ethnicity all of the time, thereby creating smaller minorities within the new borders.

end quote

I don’t disagree. The Ukraine is too short lived to be completely likened to the American Civil War to save the union, as was required in the US Constitution. Though some disagree even today. George H. Smith wrote in a view contrary to mine about America:

. . . . If we accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if we insist that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if we condemn as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate.

end quote

I don’t think a legitimate government that protects individual rights needs the constant consent of the governed. It is still moral if it is founded on individual rights, as was ours. The Ukraine exists as do most of the people who might have originally consented or declined to be part of The Ukraine. (Unlike The United States of America where they are dead.) So the Ukraine is starting at the mid-point of a legitimate, working, “State,” even if it is a young entity. So what if there is no unanimous consent as with their ethnically Russian minority? Does a government need constant consent to morally continue to be in existence? Does that justify an invasion? I say no.

Eva predicted an eastern Crimea surviving but with the west breaking up and re-integrating into Russia. And, “Therefore the Americans can do nothing because east+Crimean sentiment is so passionately pro-Russian--a fact that takes precedence over the understanding that Putin is a thug.”

Well said. You may be right, but time will tell - perhaps a very short time will tell.

Eva wrote:

In other words, he did what he was able to do ...

end quote

Very insightful. You aptly describe him as a thug who will do whatever he is able to do. Since Putin stepped in during our war of words with Syria I have been expecting the reemergence of Russian dictatorship and *might*. Unfortunately, Putin is not an old man. I wonder if there is a chance Russians will once again rebel against tyranny? Well, there was "Pussy Riot."

Thank you , Peter, for the welcome & response.

Western Ukraine simply bleeds into Poland, witht the extreme west being historically defined as 'Galicia'..

Most history agrees that russian migration into the Ukraine began with Stalin's policies and subsequent famine; Since the Russin highlands curve southwards from K'arkov, it's obvious that the point of migration would have started from Kursk.

Crimean Russia seems to have dated from the earlier time of Catherine--Stevastapol as a major port.

So in terms of demographics, it's important to note that the pro-russians in the Ukraine are passionately pro-Putin. Moreover, about half the Russians in Russia population actively supports him, too.

Bizarre as it is to us, said supporters of Putin do so under an openly authoritarian ideology that, in our lexicon, would be called 'fascism'. tose that do not (pussy, etc) are pro-democratic.

So the situation for the entirety of Russia/Ulraine is volitle, as Putin opponents are as pro-weestern as the ukraine-Ukranians. From this perspective, the entirety of The West should use moral force against Putin by encouraging and supporting his opposition.

OTH, military suggestions should be taken off the board, tas they only harden the opinions of the fascistic, anti-west idiology of his supporters.

Eva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Barone explained that:

It is obvious that Russia is conducting an invasion of Ukraine. This violates the 1994 Budapest Memorandum between Russia, Ukraine, the United States and Britain, in which each party agreed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Russia's claim that it is acting to protect the rights of Russian citizens in Ukraine is redolent of Hitler's claims that he was taking over Czechoslovakia and the free city of Danzig and attacking Poland to protect ethnic Germans. Russia has treaty rights in its naval base in Crimea, but it has gone much farther by taking over the whole peninsula; it is as if the United States, possessed of treaty rights in its base in Guantanamo, should send in military forces or auxiliaries into Cuba.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam quoted Michael Barone:

It is obvious that Russia is conducting an invasion of Ukraine. This violates the 1994 Budapest Memorandum between Russia, Ukraine, the United States and Britain, in which each party agreed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Russia's claim that it is acting to protect the rights of Russian citizens in Ukraine is redolent of Hitler's claims that he was taking over Czechoslovakia and the free city of Danzig and attacking Poland to protect ethnic Germans. Russia has treaty rights in its naval base in Crimea, but it has gone much farther by taking over the whole peninsula; it is as if the United States, possessed of treaty rights in its base in Guantanomo, should send in military forces or auxiliaries into Cuba.

end quote

Here are some other internet headlines as of 3/3/14 at 10:29 US EST:

Ukraine mobilizes after Putin’s ‘declaration of war.’

Putin new Hitler of 21st century?

Russian markets nosedive as Ukraine panic takes hold.

EU weighs reaction to Russian incursion in Ukraine.

NATO wants observers in Ukraine, dialogue with Russian.

NATO chief warns Russian on Ukraine.

NATO under no obligation to offer aid.

Thanks to Barone for reminding us of an agreement in 1994, only 20 years ago. How close is the United State to the Ukraine by way of its alliances with NATO? Here is a list of member countries:

Belgium Bulgaria Canada Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Turkey United Kingdom United States. The internet list maker mentions that “We have also been considering giving Georgia membership, which has outraged the Russians.”

I would presume The Ukraine or Georgia are not members of NATO because of their proximity to Russia and Russia’s bases. It was never wise to consider the Ukraine as a member and I remember Putin asking to join NATO, which is absurd, considering his disregard for individual rights.

The EU is closest to The Ukraine but our alliances also make us a tripwire as the United States is in South Korea. I saw a broadcast yesterday from a Ukrainian base with Russian soldiers standing outside the gates. What if shots are fired? Easily a Hungarian type of rebellion is possible or even likely.

Will the EU react economically? Will the US? I know if I were a country adjacent to Russia and not a member of NATO, I would worry about economic repercussions and war. That old book title, “East Minus West Equals Zero,” is still pertinent. A totalitarian dictatorship will inevitably collapse but with its newly found oil wealth and the leverage a major commodity can buy, a Soviet style dictatorship might be a menace for years to come. Is it “hammer time?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a list of member countries:

Belgium Bulgaria Canada Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Turkey United Kingdom United States. The internet list maker mentions that “We have also been considering giving Georgia membership, which has outraged the Russians.”

I would presume The Ukraine or Georgia are not members of NATO because of their proximity to Russia and Russia’s bases. It was never wise to consider the Ukraine as a member and I remember Putin asking to join NATO, which is absurd, considering his disregard for individual rights.

Thanks to Barone for reminding us of an agreement in 1994, only 20 years ago. How close is the United State to the Ukraine by way of its alliances with NATO?

Peter, yes those Russians are pretty poor on individual rights, not like those Turks, eh?

Armenia ring a bell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia:

Turkey recognized the state of Armenia soon after its 1991 independence, but the two countries failed to establish formal diplomatic relations . . . . However, due to intense internal pressure on both sides, and disagreements between the two countries, the diplomatic thaw between Armenia and Turkey was short-lived, and the brief opening came to a close.

end quote

That is not pertinent nor is the alleged but probable massacre of Armenians back in 1917. It is history but old news. Several NATO countries do not sufficiently protect its own citizen’s rights but those countries do not initiate force. When we invaded the middle east and Afghanistan it was the retaliatory use of force. Of course there are those who disagree that we used retaliatory force, as may Francisco (or Eva) but no one is rushing to immigrate to Iraq or Afghanistan but they are rushing to America. I am not of the opinion that the victors write the history. The truth is out there. A sliding scale of freedom with zero being no freedom to 10 being total freedom protected by a Constitution would show America near 10 and Turkey as “partly free,” and perhaps a 5.

The Ukrainian folks who just ousted the pro-Russian president are gritting their teeth and the Russian invaders are looking at them with the eyes of a bird of prey. “There will be blood.” If America was invaded by Mexico what do you think our response would be? Oh, everyone who reads this, you know. “Give me liberty or give me death!” The response in The Ukraine will be rebellion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a list of member countries:

Belgium Bulgaria Canada Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Turkey United Kingdom United States. The internet list maker mentions that “We have also been considering giving Georgia membership, which has outraged the Russians.”

I would presume The Ukraine or Georgia are not members of NATO because of their proximity to Russia and Russia’s bases. It was never wise to consider the Ukraine as a member and I remember Putin asking to join NATO, which is absurd, considering his disregard for individual rights.

Thanks to Barone for reminding us of an agreement in 1994, only 20 years ago. How close is the United State to the Ukraine by way of its alliances with NATO?

Peter, yes those Russians are pretty poor on individual rights, not like those Turks, eh?

Armenia ring a bell?

It was the Ottoman's that slaughtered the Armenians. But the current government will not own up to the historical facts which pisses the Armenians off no end.

Ba'a Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'a Chatzaf wrote:

It was the Ottoman's that slaughtered the Armenians. But the current government will not own up to the historical facts which pisses the Armenians off no end.

end quote

Thanks for your historical precision, Ba’al.

From Wikipedia:

With Constantinople as its capital and control of vast lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for over six centuries. It was dissolved in the aftermath of World War I; the collapse of the empire led to the emergence of the new political regime in Turkey itself, as well as the creation of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states.

. . . . The Hamidian massacres (Armenian), also referred to as the Armenian Massacres of 1894–1896 and Great Massacres, refer to massacres of Armenians of the Ottoman Empire in the mid-1890s, with estimates of the dead ranging between 80,000 to 300,000, and at least 50,000 children made orphans as a result. The massacres are named after Sultan Abdul Hamid II, who, in his efforts to reinforce the territorial integrity of the embattled Ottoman Empire, reasserted Pan Islamism as a state ideology. Although the massacres were aimed mainly at the Armenians, they turned into indiscriminate anti-Christian pogroms in some cases, such as in Diyarbekir where some 25,000 Assyrians were killed.

end quote

So, it was not “The Turks” first lead by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who was installed after WWI onwards, until today. Ataturk was an interesting and fairly decent guy by most standards. He dressed in western clothing and sought to westernize Turkey and when you remember he started from scratch after totalitarian rule by a “Bey” he did quite well and his heritage is alive today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the Ukrainians have a plan for the Russian invaders? Did they consider this possibility? I think they always knew this was in the wind. At the end of the rebellion against their President the Ukrainian opposition brought out their guns. If the Ukrainians were Americans or Israelis I would worry about the sinking of Russian ships in their ports and a massacre of the Russians.

Have you ever noticed that from several angles Putin resembles a Neanderthal? Very odd in a “modern” human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

March 2, 2014

FEATURE ARTICLE

The 80s Called. Do We Want Their Foreign Policy Back?

Lessons for a New Age of Russian Imperialism

by Robert Tracinski

You may recall a notorious moment from one of the 2012 president debates when President Obama cited Mitt Romney's warning about the growing threat from Russia and dismissed it with a snarky one-liner: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back."

Fast forward a year or so, and President Obama faces the biggest foreign policy crisis of his presidency: Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which brings the curses of war and imperial conquest back to Europe.

Let's dispense, by the way, with the journalistic evasion of calling this an "invasion of Crimea," as if the Crimean Peninsula were not part of the sovereign territory of Ukraine. While Putin may be particularly interested in securing the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, he knows very well that he can't hold Crimea on its own, since it is dependent on the mainland for power and water. No, it's clear that Putin is interested in carving off a large Russian-speaking slice of Eastern Ukraine. It's just as clear he would like to take all of Ukraine, which is why he and his mouthpieces have been busy delegitimizing the new Ukrainian government and denouncing the victorious opposition in Kiev as "fascists," which is most definitely a fighting word.

Putin is reviving the Brezhnev Doctrine, in which the Soviet Union declared that it could invade any country that tried to escape its domination. The Brezhnev Doctrine was summed up as "once you go Communist, you never go back." Putin's version is a bit cruder. The Putin Doctrine is: once you become a kleptocratic dictatorship subservient to Moscow, you never go back.

So what do we do? How can we roll back Soviet—er, Russian—aggression?

The 1980s are calling. They want to know if we want their foreign policy back.

Why should we look to the 1980s? Because that was the decade when we broke the Brezhnev Doctrine. By the end of the 80s, as Eastern European countries began to throw off the Communist yoke, the Brezhnev Doctrine yielded to the Sinatra Doctrine:

Russia would let the countries of Eastern Europe do it their way.

What lessons can we learn for a new age of Russian imperialism?

First, when the aggression comes, it's too late. President Reagan was mortified, when the Soviets demanded a crackdown on the Solidarity movement in 1981, that there was so little America could do about it, given the decline of our military power in the backlash against the Vietnam War. Barack Obama finds himself in in the same situation, given the decline of American military power that he has presided over in the backlash against the Iraq War.

But Reagan found plenty to do in Poland without using our military power. We imposed sanctions against the Polish regime and the Soviet Union, and throughout the 80s we gave Solidarity everything from moral support, to money, equipment, and training.

We did the same thing on a bigger scale in Afghanistan, providing extensive covert military assistance to the Afghan insurgency, including intelligence, training, and huge quantities of weapons. This famously included Stinger portable anti-aircraft missiles, which so terrified Soviet pilots that ground troops began to refer to them as "cosmonauts" because they would stay at high altitude and refused to offer close air support.

Afghanistan was the last place the Soviets implemented the Brezhnev Doctrine, and they soon regretted it. But Afghanistan was never just about Afghanistan. It was about breaking the world's fear of the Red Army. The message was: if we can do this to you in Afghanistan, imagine what we can do to you in Poland.

Or central America, where American weapons and training helped beat back Communist insurgents in El Salvador, and just the suggestion of US support summoned into existence a resistance army to oppose the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. We made similar efforts to roll back Communist expansion in Cambodia and Angola.

Please note, as a lesson to anti-interventionists on both the left and the right, that all of these actions were indirect and comparatively small in scale. This is the real truth of "peace through strength": the stronger and more vigorous our policy, the less we actually have to do.

In fact, the biggest direct military intervention of the Reagan era was a US invasion of the tiny island of Grenada. This action was small but important, putting a quick end to Cuba's attempt to militarize the Caribbean.

All of these specific interventions were backed by a wider policy: a renewed commitment to support our NATO allies and a massive military buildup backed by an economic revival. This was the material backing for renewed ideological opposition to the Soviets, including repeated public recognition of the evil of Soviet domination, from the "evil empire" to "tear down this wall."

All of this was summed up in the Reagan Doctrine: a commitment to counter the Soviets and roll back their influence worldwide, point for point. This came from the president whose strategy for the Cold War was: "We win, they lose."

If President Reagan could see what Russia is doing today, he would cock his head and say, "Well, there they go again." And then he would deploy the whole panoply of resistance we used against Moscow in his day. He might start with the fact that Poland has strong ties to Ukraine's pro-European majority and a direct interest in opposing Russia, making the Poles an obvious conduit for support to the new government in Kiev—both open and covert, and both economic and military. The Baltic states are also freaking out, given their own vulnerability to Russian aggression, and they can be counted on for extensive support. The urgent priority is to rapidly convert Western Ukraine into a "porcupine state"—one that may not be able to win a war with Russia outright, but can make such a war too painful to be appealing.

Instead, we get President Obama's totally ineffectual response, in which he spends 90 minutes on the phone to warn Vladimir Putin that invading Ukraine would "negatively impact Russia's standing in the international community." As Julia Ioffe replies: "as if there's much left or as if Putin really cares."

Implementing the lessons of the 1980s will require a lot of money and a lot of effort, and some tough decisions that will be very unpopular in the halls of the United Nations. It will also require something this president has found even more difficult to do: challenging the preconceived notions of the left.

But we know what it looks like when American weakness and uncertainty allow an aggressive dictatorship and its allies to advance across the world. To avoid that outcome, we need to reverse course and do it fast.

If we don't, pretty soon the 1970s will be calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just breaking:

Russia requests UN Security Council meeting. And there seems to be some commo by Samantha Powers our UN ambassador right now at 3:57. She called it not a humans right issue but aggression and an invasion.

and

Russian jets enter Ukrainian airspace.

Oil prices spiking over here. $105 per barrel.

Dow drops 200.

Russian troops surround Ukrainian bases.

edit

Charlie Gasparino on Fox is saying our financial stake in the Ukraine is small but it is huge in Russian investments. Freeze the Russian’s accounts but that would damage our banks too. Freezing Russian assets is a big stick, using a type of force, but without firing a shot. Also, get your money out of all stock markets, he suggests, which would have a domino affect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia:

Turkey recognized the state of Armenia soon after its 1991 independence, but the two countries failed to establish formal diplomatic relations . . . . However, due to intense internal pressure on both sides, and disagreements between the two countries, the diplomatic thaw between Armenia and Turkey was short-lived, and the brief opening came to a close.

end quote

That is not pertinent nor is the alleged but probable massacre of Armenians back in 1917. It is history but old news. Several NATO countries do not sufficiently protect its own citizen’s rights but those countries do not initiate force. When we invaded the middle east and Afghanistan it was the retaliatory use of force. Of course there are those who disagree that we used retaliatory force, as may Francisco (or Eva) but no one is rushing to immigrate to Iraq or Afghanistan but they are rushing to America. I am not of the opinion that the victors write the history. The truth is out there. A sliding scale of freedom with zero being no freedom to 10 being total freedom protected by a Constitution would show America near 10 and Turkey as “partly free,” and perhaps a 5.

The Ukrainian folks who just ousted the pro-Russian president are gritting their teeth and the Russian invaders are looking at them with the eyes of a bird of prey. “There will be blood.” If America was invaded by Mexico what do you think our response would be? Oh, everyone who reads this, you know. “Give me liberty or give me death!” The response in The Ukraine will be rebellion.

I think that your USA- invaded- by- Mexico analogy misses the mark. Rather it would be like Mexicico occupying parts of the USA that were by huge% of Mexican ethnicity.

Also, of course, it's a question of balance of power. Russia is armed to the teeth---Mexico? throwing unripe avocados and cans of Corona?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, of course, it's a question of balance of power. Russia is armed to the teeth---Mexico? throwing unripe avocados and cans of Corona?

ALERT... ALERT!!!

Hate speech - get out the ball gags and take her to the re-education camp.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eva derisively mentions Mexicans using “cans of Corona” as “throw weapons.” I did not know Corona came in cans. I have only seen it in bottles. A century ago I think, an entire family of German brewers moved to Mexico, so in a sense you would be drinking Germanic beer made in Mexico. It is a very good beer.

And if you have ever lived and went to school in an area where some of the population is Hispanic you would not be bashing their fighting abilities. Even Hollywood cowboy movies portray Mexican bandits or “big hats” (El Charos?) as equals who are not to be messed with. The problem with Mexican offensive capabilities at the national level is that they are dependent upon their government, which has traditionally not had a strong Constitution based on individual rights (and hence poverty) and Mexican cultural acceptance of corruption.

The Ukraine is relatively quiet. Has Putin rethought his aggression? That is doubtful. Knight to King’s four.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Russian “lawmaker” (is he a stooge for “El Duce?” Putin reminds me more of Mussolini than Hitler or Stalin) has introduced a bill to illegitimatize the use of the dollar in electronic transactions and to make it illegal to even possess a paper dollar. The move is to hurt us in the “deficit,” reserve dollar problem according to Fox Business.

Why is there so little reporting “on the street” in the Ukraine? Are its people huddling inside? What is its own news media reporting? What is the slant in the Soviet press? Why must a person dig through the internet to find out anything? Our so called free press is doing a poor job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that my point was that because the Mexican army would be unable to seize American terratory, the comparison with Putin's Russia is moot. In any case, the last time terratory was an issue (1848), they might as well have been using guacamole for gunpowder.

Moreover, being half Hungarian and half Greek--three and two generations removed, respectively--- the familial humor is rather biting, to say the least, with no concession to cumbaya- anglo sensitivities.

Q What's the difference between a Russian and an American?

A Both will sell you their own sister, but only the American will deliver.

Q If three greeks are arguing, how many opinions will they always have?

A Four. One in every three Greeks is a philosopher.

Rest assured, moreover that anglo patronizing kindnesses are not recriprocal: the nicest thing they're called behind their backs is 'chingacista'.

Eva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US says "Russia, you should be good, otherwise we will limit trade with you." Russia says "We are going to do whatever you want. You try that, and we'll dump our US Treasuries on the market". Result: 30 year US Treasuries demanded interest rate climbs from 3.55 to 3.65.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US says "Russia, you should be good, otherwise we will limit trade with you." Russia says "We are going to do whatever you want. You try that, and we'll dump our US Treasuries on the market". Result: 30 year US Treasuries demanded interest rate climbs from 3.55 to 3.65.

Dean: For us folks that can be numerically challanged, what does your post mean?

The first Russia says quote that ends in "...whatever you want." makes no sense to me with what follows.

So, I know I am missing both the 3.55 to 3.65's meaning and the linguistic semantic stuff.

Be gentle!

A...

confused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now