Starting with Nord Stream II and snowballing from there. And quite a (perfect) phone call to President Zelensky, that appears to have induced panic in Kyev with talk of the city being “sacked”.
Now the State Department is claiming that if Russia makes any move on the country’s borders, the selfsame pipeline would be “at the bottom of the sea”. Given the Afghanistan travesty, Putin has no fear, nor do his allies in Germany.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Too bad Ukraine couldn't have joined N A TO when it had the chance. That and a EU membership would have been a real thorn under Putin's saddle.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
No.
For one, there is that broken promise made by the late George H.W. Bush to Russia that there would be no NATO involvement in former Soviet satellite states, which Putin routinely rubs in the face of the West.
For another, the EU is not what it claims to be. It is a vehicle to empower Germany, who for the record recognized the independence of Croatia and Slovenia in 1991 which went against US policy. The involvement of US forces in the Bosnia conflict mushroomed out of that, leading to more states to come under Germany’s umbrella. Even now, Germany is actually taking Putin’s side in the Ukraine affair, undermining NATO.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
We should stay far, far away from this one.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
That won't happen without us losing even more face than before.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Given how things have gone so far elsewhere, any loss of face from staying out of it would be far less than the fools we would make ourselves look like getting into it given the current inability of our current government and military leadership to do anything anywhere close to right.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
This Times Guest Columnist holds that while Joe has done much right to control this crisis, his own traits may be his undoing:
We report, you decide:
The mistakes of the Biden administration on national security policy have not been mistakes of interagency coordination or errant cabinet members. They have largely been mistakes of the president’s own making: loudly proclaiming to “put human rights back at the center of our foreign policy” without actually doing so, linking “foreign policy for the middle class” with trade protectionism, failing to establish an effective international economic policy that helps reduce reliance on China and, most awfully, the decisions about Afghanistan.
My belief is that Mr. Biden’s troubles stem from arrogance that he’s right — has always been right — on issues where his recommended policies were not adopted when he was a senator or the vice president, specifically when it came to decisions over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We have not been in any kind of shooting War with Russia since their Revolution, when we sent forces to fight with the White Russians. I think the results, if such is to be the case at this time will prove far more catastrophic.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:The director of the Central Intelligence Agency conveyed our knowledge of military deployment and our opposition to Moscow. The director of national intelligence shared information with NATO allies. The secretary of state warned about Russian disinformation operations. The secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have projected steadiness and readiness, with the defense secretary emphasizing that “a move on Ukraine will accomplish the very thing Russia says it does not want — a NATO alliance strengthened and resolved on its western flank.” The administration is creatively orchestrating gas supplies to Europe should Russia cut them off.
NATO also responded strongly, reassuring its frontline states by considering the deployment of additional alliance military forces, and reaffirmed its commitment to including potential new members. Keeping 30 countries together is a huge achievement when President Vladimir Putin of Russia has Ukraine in his cross hairs and is threatening to shoot the hostage unless NATO reverses 30 years of European security. …
Trying to see what was done “right” here.
Remember the promise made and subsequently broken by George H.W. Bush and a number of his successors because newly-unified Germany started a hawkish foreign policy by recognizing the independence of Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia, that promise being no NATO involvement in former Soviet territories particularly in Europe. Also, and this is not widely mentioned, ever since the late 90s war in the Balkans the control of NATO was handed over to the EU, in which Germany is the dominant state.
It is both Nord Stream 2 reversal and the Afghanistan debacle that gave Russia the impression of the USA’s weakness.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I suspect that Putin is operating on the old "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" as a foreign relations concept. Since we walked out of Afganistan and left all non-Taliban people hanging out to dry, or more accurately to be tortured and killed, the US has not credibility to lose, so we should not even be wasting paper on this one. If there is anything worse than Biden sending troops in, I can't think of it right now, unless he decides, with arrogance and ignorance to try to do whatever it takes to stop Russia, which could easily lead to a major war. Over what? Nothing that would be of any benefit to anyone. Plus, it would be one the US would be almost certain to lose.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Oh, the last thing that Biden would ever have US troops do is fight, particularly after warning all US citizens to flee.
Doesn’t matter that NATO’s credibility is at state, but not for the reasons one might think. And this is another ploy by the EU to empower itself militarily.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, could we today have the "unity" this song conveys?
There is a line of lyrics almost at the end that simply is no longer true (our "postwar" record: 1W, 2L, 2T):
Even though we both were there for the same one (a loss; and for roundly overlapping tours), I must acknowledge I was shot at on six different occasions - and all I was expected to do was take cover.
Mr. Helfner, if the EU seeks to become some kind of military power bypassing NATO, they's better start learning to spend a bit more than 2% of their GNP on defense. Austria (not in NATO, but in the EU) probably has enough troops (and fancy uniforms) to put on a parade and a couple of 50yo fighter aircraft for a "flyover". They'd last about as long against Putin as did Netherlands against Hitler.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
There are plans in place already for a EU military, with the Bundeswehr’s high command in charge. Many member states have already committed sizable portions of their own militaries to work under the high command thereof; it would not take much to unite all of the disparate military forces.
But take note again that Germany is siding a great deal with Russia on this matter, using its power to forbid member states to assist Ukraine militarily. They aren’t going to let Nord Stream 2 go, no matter what happens to Ukraine in the debacle. Molotov-Ribbentrop redux?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Possibly a premature hope, but, if as this Times columnist Thomas L. Freidman thinks just might be possible, the world will be a better place if Joe can pull this off:
Fair Use:
The Ukraine story is far from over. But if Vladimir Putin opts to back away from invading Ukraine, even temporarily, it’s because Joe Biden — that guy whose right-wing critics suggest is so deep in dementia he wouldn’t know Kyiv from Kansas or AARP from NATO — has matched every Putin chess move with an effective counter of his own.
Putin has been on such a run of outmaneuvering the West and destabilizing our politics that it is easy to overrate him. It is also hard to believe a word that comes out of his mouth. But if Putin was sincere when he said Tuesday that he was “ready to continue on the negotiating track” to ensure that Ukraine never joins NATO and was also pulling back some of his menacing forces — U.S. officials say there’s no sign of that yet — it’s because Biden’s statecraft has given Putin pause.
It's all transactional with Putin. If he thinks he can attack Ukraine and they surrender, they're back under his thumb.
But if both Joe and columnist Tom Freidman hold, Putin has more to lose from not being able to complete world currency transactions ($,€,¥) and Europe can get the energy they need from other sources, his oligarch pals will cease to be just that and they even could conspire to overthrow him.
Khrushchev backed down when he realized JFK meant business. Being the "Sov at heart" he appears to be, Putin could well do same and this crisis ends without a shot.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Thomas Friedman; no comment. As far as the EU and Putin’s Russia go, they have been working to undermine the greenback for decades, and sorry to say Biden is aiding them in that goal.
And Biden certainly is no JFK, no matter JFK’s own foibles and faults.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
The news was fashioned to appear that Khrushchev backed down. Truth is JFK also agreed to remove missiles he had installed in Turkey, which started the conflict. The public was conveniently not told about that at the time.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Not to mention, Putin is not the least bit worried about losing either renminbi or euro.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, does Putin think after Ukraine surrenders (does he think it will be an Anschluss?; he will get in the least a "bloody nose"), the ₽ will become a world currency?
Now we ask; would Putin be initiating this act of aggression if Trump remained in power (duly elected or "otherwise")? I'll bet Putin envisioned a "triple alliance" (think the Yalta "photo op") with Xi in place of the UK - and he of course in the center.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Now we ask; would Putin be initiating this act of aggression if Trump remained in power (duly elected or "otherwise")? I'll bet Putin envisioned a "triple alliance" (think the Yalta "photo op") with Xi in place of the UK - and he of course in the center.
You think Trump would ally with Putin? Maybe when pigs fly. Otherwise, not a chance. Remember, it was Biden that quit objecting to the pipeline Putin wanted to build, not Trump.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Agreed. Also comes to mind when Hillary declared that she “want(ed) very much to have a strong Russia” back when she was secretary of state in 2010.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Hilton Suites, Boca Raton--
Messrs. Harris and Helfner, let's first dispense with our differences regarding Hillary. To me, it didn't matter whether I liked her or not; what mattered is that she brought more qualifications to the table to be POTUS since Bush41. Her opponent had none whatsoever and did not develop any over his four years in office.
Now I'm sorry but so far as I'm concerned, Trump and his , let's be nice and call them colleagues, sought to install him as a dictator. Hitler, Franco, Mussoluini, Putin, and Xi were all duly elected to one branch of government or the other, but once there, by one devious means or the other, grabbed sole power. Trump and his cabal, were plotting same.
There was an excellent. Times Magazine article a week ago regarding Michael Flynn (I withhold use of his military title because to me, he has disgraced the uniform he once wore) and his gang that were planning the overthrow of '20 election results even before Election Day. They sensed that Trump was going to lose, which to them simply meant someone else had more Electoral Votes cast in their favor. When the election turned out to be closer than expected, they swung into action first requesting recounts, then seeking redress from state Judiciaries, to outright coercion of election officials, and finally to January 6, which included a death threat to the VPOTUS. If that is not seeking to overthrow a duly elected incoming government, then I'm at a loss to know what is.
Now probably more to point regarding the Ukraine crisis, this Tom Friedman column appearing yesterday lays much the blame upon expanding NATO right to Russia's border rather than to "satellites" as was when the treaty was signed.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
We’re back to “qualifications”, I see. Time spent in various high offices is not such a thing; we have been over that, and the “can of worms” principle still applies (e.g. the unavenged blood of ambassador Chris Stevens).
Pushing the “Russia, Russia, Russia” lie is going to bring the tone of the thread down; please leave that alone, is all I ask, particularly in light of the Mueller verdict and what Durham has recently uncovered. And use of the “D-word” threatens to do so even more; such people do not relinquish power, and comparing the electoral processes of parliamentary systems (some ostensibly, such as in Red China) is simply a false comparison.
As far as Flynn goes, being entrapped by the FBI while sneakily denying constitutional rights on Comey’s part (via mendacity) does not qualify as disgracing one’s uniform, unless there is some kind of legal rivalry between federal police agencies and military and Flynn should have dispensed in a bloody manner.
I do agree somewhat about the NATO expansion matter, since that dates back to 1991 and George H.W. Bush’s promise to Yeltsin that was broken by (of all members) Germany via their recognition of the independence of Croatia and Slovenia from the former Yugoslavia. This led directly to the Bosnia conflict once Yugoslavia destabilized further, and is one of the political positions that Putin still demagogues on to this day.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Turns out so-called sanctions do not involve targeting Russia’s energy sector or their involvement in the SWIFT system. Waiting for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to be bombed…
Russian collaboration? By shutting down our energy sector and buying from Russia instead, the current administration is complicit in this invasion, period.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
This topic seems to dominate the news cycle these days. Kind of overwhelming.
Germany is using this as an excuse to turn more militaristic. Zelenskiy wants in as far as the EU is concerned; it really is remarkable how he happens to be holding off the Red Army under apocalyptic threats of offensive nuclear warfare. The EU seemingly took the lead in terms of punishing Russia by shutting down Nord Stream 2 and excluding from SWIFT oil transactions.
I did not watch Biden’s SOTU.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
While best left to professional musicians, the Ukrainian National Anthem is indeed an inspiring work of music. May it be performed, until Kiev falls, just as was the Polish National Anthem played until Warsaw fell thirty five days after Hitler invaded September 1, 1939.
An aside: my Mother and Father were married on September 2, 1939.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Quinnipiac poll from two days ago shows consensus on banning oil imports from Russia and the same for a US military response if Russia were to hit a NATO country.
This one caught my eye, however:
quote:As the world witnesses what is happening to Ukraine, Americans were asked what they would do if they were in the same position as Ukrainians are now: stay and fight or leave the country? A majority (55 percent) say they would stay and fight, while 38 percent say they would leave the country. Republicans say 68 - 25 percent and independents say 57 - 36 percent they would stay and fight, while Democrats say 52 - 40 percent they would leave the country.
Substantial support for “a rifle behind every blade of grass” (whoever might have originated that), but a lot of a certain segment of the population seem to want to make themselves targets by attempting to become refugees.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I think the "rifle behind every blade of grass" was said by one of the Japanese general when the suggestion was made by some to plan an invasion of the western US.
As to the ones that want to leave, my thought in essence, is, "can we help you pack?" And "Don't let the door bang your butt on your way out.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
I’ve heard of the reputed attribution to Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku (whose name is interesting, since his family name means “mountain roots” and his given name is the number 56, his father’s age when he was born apparently); if there’s one good that came out of the internet, it is being able to second-guess every attribution and sift out misattributions although not always easily.
Those who would flee if this country is attacked had better not act surprised if no other country welcomes them with open arms, what with the damage they are doing to our country’s reputation now that they are in power at present.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: I’ve heard of the reputed attribution to Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku (whose name is interesting, since his family name means “mountain roots” and his given name is the number 56, his father’s age when he was born apparently)
Thank you. Now that you say it, Yamamoto rings a bell.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, do you consider anyone who is an expatriate, i.e. one who stays longer than the visa granted to tourists (the passport stamp you get when entering), for whatever the reason as having "fled" the country?
While I take no umbrage whatever to your statement, it would appear that I come from a family of expatriates. I'm the only one in three generations who has not been an "expat". While I've been overseas a good number of times in this life visiting four continents, it has never been for longer than that "stamp at the airport" allows.
1) My Mother's family emigrated to Salzburg during '34 because "they hated FDR". Golly, wonder why they came back during '38?
2) My Sister resided overseas, UK and HKG, '71-'89. "International Banking" with one financial house or the other.
3) A Nephew resided in the UK "doing who knows what" from '88 to '94. He is, however, now back in NY; happily married and with a stable career as a "Mad Man"(advertising).
4) My Niece resides in Sydney NSW AU; her musician husband is from there and "couldn't make it in New York". God knows how they "make it down there", and I don't ask.
Finally, I have two friends, independent of each other, who have said to me that if Trump is re-elected in '24, "they're gone".
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Well, Quinnipiac did not present a “whatever the reason” scenario, but a specific one, and I was discussing that solely.
But just to entertain that red herring (with all due respect), one can easily revisit the number of celebrities who claimed they would depart the country (rather than outright flee as a refugee) if the man who became No. 45 would accede the position of chief executive, yet they did not.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
As far as all these people who say that if . . .[u]whoever[/u] is elected or if [u]whatever[/u] happens they are going to leave the country, my attitude is, either put your money where your mouth is and do it or shut up. We have heard this several times very publicly and then thundering silence when it does not happen.
In my previous life in Taiwan, my son who stayed to study Chinese and then went two years of college asked what I thought about him joining their military at the time of one of the PRC's saber rattling. I said, if you think you ought to, go for it. These people are worth protecting.
On a different note, one family I knew that was in Singapore with a missions work was told that they could get permanent residency, but if they did, then their son would be obligated to serve in the Singapore military. They did, and he did, even though a US citizen. Have lost contact so I am not sure, but I believe he stayed in beyond his obligated minimum. The "boy" would now be pushing 40.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
As far as all these people who say that if . . .[u]whoever[/u] is elected or if [u]whatever[/u] happens they are going to leave the country, my attitude is, either put your money where your mouth is and do it or shut up. We have heard this several times very publicly and then thundering silence when it does not happen.
In my previous life in Taiwan, my son who stayed to study Chinese and then went two years of college asked what I thought about him joining their military at the time of one of the PRC's saber rattling. I said, if you think you ought to, go for it. These people are worth protecting.
On a different note, one family I knew that was in Singapore with a missions work was told that they could get permanent residency, but if they did, then their son would be obligated to serve in the Singapore military. He was 12 or 13 at that time, and said it was OK with him. They stayed, and he did serve, even though a US citizen. Have lost contact so I am not sure, but I believe he stayed in beyond his obligated minimum. The "boy" would now be pushing 40.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
While by now it simply inevitable that Ukraine will have to surrender and how much of their national identity they will be allowed to retain, such as becoming a "puppet satellite" as is Belarus, is anyone's guess.
The ultimate disposition of the Polish MIG aircraft, on which Ukranian pilots may or may not be qualified to fly under combat conditions, will have little to no effect on the outcome.
Somehow, I think "Vladimer The Great" is envisioning a '25 rendering of the "Big Three" photo ops from either Teheran or Yalta, with a "cast" of he, Trump, and Xi. Oh, but which one would get the center seat once held by FDR. The boys can fight that one out amongst themselves.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Trump has nothing to do with this, nor is he a leftist like Messrs. Hsi and Putin. Please refrain from the red herrings. It was Biden who mentioned a “minor incursion” and that Putin “has to do something”.
And observe what is happening in the EU as a result of this. Letting Ukraine go would be tantamount to their surrender, so this is an excuse to put their long-standing joining of militaries under one high command into play. Since all of the pertinent EU technocrats envision “the spirit of Charlemagne” animating the continent as a consequence, this would herald a sudden transition from a dovish foreign policy to very hawkish, to put it mildly.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Well Mr. Helfner, at present Trump does not hold office, but come '25, there is all too real possibility that he will become POTUS 47.
"Spirit of Charlemagne" or "Spirit of Peter the Great"; all the same. Just greedy demagogues who can't accept what they have, and what they want is more.
"Vladimir The Great" is just one more. He's going to conquer Ukraine, but not without the whole world realizing what a tyrant he is.
A Sirius XM channel, 76 Classical, to which my auto's radio is tuned, has pledged to play the Ukrainian National Anthem each day until she is defeated, which is inevitable. This is much like a Polish radio station during '39 that vowed to play their anthem periodically so long as the nation did not fall to the Nazis.
It's hopless; but let us hope.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Call nothing inevitable.
Trump is no ally of either Putin or Xi, but Biden via his deliberate inaction shows himself to be. Please let's put the old lie to bed.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, Joe will be gone in a year. Come '24, Kamala will join "the club" comprising Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson, and Arthur of successor VP's who were denied the nomination. Trump will join with Grover Cleveland as the only president's to serve non-consecutive terms - and I will lose a very special and dear friend when she and her husband emigrate (think South Africa).
Putting away the crystal ball.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
"They're talkin'"
What else is new; how long did they "talk" at Panmunjom; how about Paris?
But why don't they just appoint me as a final and binding arbitrator? So here's what will "go down":
1) Immediate cease fire and orderly withdrawal of Russian armed forces from Ukraine.
2) Let Russia have those two provinces in Eastern Ukraine that are culturally Russian.
3) Establish a fifteen mile wide DMZ around Ukraine which would include all contiguous sovereignties. The zone would extend 7.5 miles into each (Poland; your military base that touches the Ukrainian border wil have to go elsewhere).
4) Return confiscated property to the Russian "oligarchs".
5) Remove all economic sanctions, including the NG pipeline to Germany, that have been imposed resulting from this conflict.
6) Re-establish access to previously existing airspace by civilian aircraft presently blocked.
That's all, folks!!!
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Sure sounds like a redux of Molotov-Ribbentrop.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
NO! Putin should not be allowed to gain anything from his aggression. Right now he is feeling his oats. He is probably not aware that the Russian troops are performing as poorly as they are because everyone is afraid to tell him. Dictators do tend to shoot the messengers that bring bad news. To give him anything he has occupied will only encourage further aggression. Try this: You stop now, pull everything military back to no less than 10 km from the Ukraine border and we won't bomb you into oblivion. Make up your mind within 24 hours or bombs will start falling on your military facilities. If that does not get your attention, then we will hunt you down. WW2 type sanctuaries will not work anymore.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Sounds a bit milder than what Trump threatened, which was to attack Moscow.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Divergent opinion amongstTimes columnists today. First Brett Stephens holds that Putin will "double down: i.e. Chemicals and Nukes. That he starts WWIII matters not. Now Tom Friedman holds otherwise. Putin is licked. He will soon realize it and just "walk".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
The only one who can answer which one of these is right (Stephens or Friedman) or if the answer is "none of the above" is Putin himself. I don't know the political leanings of either of these two, nor if it would have any bearing on their thoughts here. Whether Putin realizes the current realities is uncertain which makes his likely reaction even less easy to predict. I think his actions thus far shows that his intent is to either rule or ruin. In other words, if he does not prevail, he will destroy everything so that there will be nothing left for anyone.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Tremendous expression of your thoughts, Mr. Harris.
If you chose to send such off to The Times as a Letter to the Editor, I'd bet they'd publish it - even though their standards are very high (I've tried without success several times in this life - and most who know me think I have good command of the Queen's language).
That Vlad is now targeting clearly civilian "harbors of refuge", i.e., the hospital, the movie theatre, is indicative of his "rule or ruin". He is rapidly learning it's "not so fast" to rule; so therefore, it is to ruin.
When this is over, if there is to be a Nurenberg, UNOHOO best be on the docket.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Mr. Norman, should you want to plagiarize the above and send it to the times, that is fine with me. I do not plan to do so. Although originally my view was for the US to stay far far away from this conflict I no longer consider that a practical option, although I still think that "boots on the ground" should be avoided unless and until there is a direct attack on a US facility or territory. The more I see of Putin's actions the more convinced I am that any success will only increase his appetite for further conquests until he is either defeated, deposed or dead. He should be treated as the cold mass murderer that he is.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, I'll take a bye on that invitation.
We're largely, if not all, college graduates around here; and starting as Freshmen on campus, it was drilled into us how much a "mortal sin" was plagiarism.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Harris, I'll take a bye on that invitation.
We're largely, if not all, college graduates around here; and starting as Freshmen on campus, it was drilled into us how much a "mortal sin" was plagiarism.
Funny thing, if you write specifications, almost the opposite is true. If it has proven to get the right products and is understood by the contractors and gotten past the contractor's lawyers looking for holes to shoot you through, you use it. Likewise, it seems that college literature professors love complexity and ambiguity. The opposite is true with specifications, and for that matter most other professional writing. You want to be clear and simple and avoid anything that can lead to more than one interpretation and conclusion. One of the thoughts in specification writing is similar to my father's concerning buying a new car: Do not buy a new car model the first year it is out. If you like it, wait until the second or third year so that the manufacturer will have found and fixed the bugs that only show up after the model is on the street. The equivalent in specifications is when mooching off a specification for the same type work, use what has been through construction by a contractor so that the holes are known and can be filled. I could go on for a while on some of the things that have happened due to lack of clarity in specifications, but I will quit here. Anyway, just saying that in the engineering word, plagarization is considered by many to be complimentary. Might as well. There are usually no copyright issues involved. In public works the plans and specifications are usually the property of the owner if not completely public information, so that the engineer that developed them has no control of reuse of anything not patented.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
This Times article appearing today would suggest a Russian victory in the war is not an "open and shut" or "a matter of time".
Fair Use:
KYIV, Ukraine — The city of Kyiv covers 325 square miles and is divided by a broad river. It has about 500,000 structures — factories, ornate churches and high-rise apartments — many on narrow, winding streets. Roughly two million people remain after extensive evacuations of women and children.
To the northwest and to the east, tens of thousands of Russian troops are pressing toward the city, Ukraine’s capital, backed by columns of tanks, armored vehicles and artillery. Inside Kyiv, Ukrainian soldiers and civilian volunteers are fortifying the downtown with barriers, anti-tank mines and artillery.
Kyiv remains the biggest prize of all for the Russian military; it is the seat of government and ingrained in both Russian and Ukrainian identity. But capturing it, military analysts say, would require a furious and bloody conflict that could be the world’s biggest urban battle in 80 years.
Let's hope that against long odds, Ukraine can prevail. The world will somehow "be a better place" if they can.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
This article from The Times describes conditions for two Ukraians returning from Poland. They will have to change trains at the border as Polish rails are Standard Gauge and those within Ukraine are Russian wide gauge.
Fair Use:
ABOARD THE PRAGUE-PRZEMYSL TRAIN — On the 12th night of the war, on a platform at Prague’s central train station, Vitali Slobodianiuk and Volodymyr Kotsyuba met for the first time.
They had few things in common: both were Ukrainians working in construction sites in the Czech Republic. On that frigid evening, both got on a train back to Ukraine to join the fight against Russia’s invading army.
Mr. Slobodianiuk, a 47-year-old former soldier, and Mr. Kotsyuba, a 35-year-old university graduate, shared a neat compartment on the sleeper train from Prague to the Polish-Ukrainian border town of Przemysl, sticking together, even though most carriages were virtually empty.
There are reports elsewhere that Amtrak has been running trains with reduced consists simply because too many cars have been Bad Ordered. The reports also suggest that many of the Bad Orders result from "passenger convenience" items such as working toilets and light fixtures. Does anyone think a Ukranian fleeing the war zone would be "uh, too worried" about any of such? So long as the car could stay on the rails, I don't think they'd be too worried even if the failed parts were running gear.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: There are reports elsewhere that Amtrak has been running trains with reduced consists simply because too many cars have been Bad Ordered. The reports also suggest that many of the Bad Orders result from "passenger convenience" items such as working toilets and light fixtures. Does anyone think a Ukranian fleeing the war zone would be "uh, too worried" about any of such? So long as the car could stay on the rails, I don't think they'd be too worried even if the failed parts were running gear.
Uh, no. These people moving in both directions are operating with a level of desperation that makes people clinging to the outside of trains in India look calm and orderly. It is simply far beyond what most people in this country can even begin to comprehend. A prime example of this level of non-comprehension is that supposedly when Zelenskyy appeared on zoom before congress some people complained that he should have been better dressed than he was. I think the man has more things on his mind than to be worried about whether his hair is combed or his (nonexistent) tie is straight.
It is like several years ago when there was a significant hurricane and flooding in New Orleans, the mayor is reputed to have said, send us Greyhounds. I am not going to ask my people to get on school buses. Multiple drownings. Aerial shots after the hurricane showed a lot full of school buses flooded to above the inside floor. Sorry folks, if I need to in order to escape a flood, the back of a truck is just fine with me.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Here is coverage from "The Beeb" on train travel WITHIN Ukraine:
The air raid alarm in the station tower has just started: no bombs are falling, but nerves are fraying. The guard tells us to shelter with the refugees in the tunnel under the platform.
There are several thousand people here, in a long queue.
We wait among the anxious and exhausted, the families calming scared children, the elderly woman wrapped in a blanket and pulling a suitcase. She looks as if she cannot possibly walk another step. But she will trudge forward when the all-clear is given. This is not a place of options. Go forward, or run the risk of the war catching up with you.
Then a horn blares. A searchlight appears down the track to the east, a looming brilliance that grows larger as it approaches. Another horn sounds, followed by a conductor's whistle cutting through the clamour of the air raid sirens. A murmur ripples through the crowd. The all-clear is declared, and they can board a train to Poland.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Very much inclined to stay with what I said two months ago: "The more I see of Putin's actions the more convinced I am that any success will only increase his appetite for further conquests until he is either defeated, deposed or dead. He should be treated as the cold mass murderer that he is."
From some of what is being said it appears that Ukraine may be turning things around somewhat, but then who knows what the difference is between what is published and reality. I do not expect, given what has historically been the dictator's mindset that Putin will decide he cannot win and throw in the towel. Nor do I think that anyone around him is likely to tell him that to do so would be a good idea, or even that he is losing. There are some saying that the man is very sick physically with a cancer. This may hopefully hasten his demise.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Messrs. Harris and Helfner, Last week I was out in CT for, first, my 60th Reunion (held one year late) at South Kent, then to my Sister in Greenwich.
Her lines of thought are much the same as are yours.
Now regarding The War, let's say Ruskies and Yukes are at a stalemate. Russia now knows they are not going to capture Ukraine in its entirety, but can hold 'em off in the East and in the process, make Ukraine a landlocked sovereignty just as are many another Eastern European states.
So the only way out is a negotiated settlement. Despite Zelensky's comment that "Henry the K" is thinking 1938 (Chamberlain's "appeasement" to Hitler), both parties will have to give up something. In the case of Russia, a cease fire and reparations, but Ukraine to give up the lands Russia has captured and accept they are a landlocked state.
Now Ukraine has valuable agricultural exports such as wheat that represent exports paid for in "hard" currencies such as $ and €, but also on a humanitarian level, "Feeding the world".
Finally to get to what we largely gather here to discuss - railroads. Except for one major problem, the "products of agriculture" could be shipped West by rail to "free" European ports such as Danzig (whoops, Gdansk in newspeak), Antwerp, and Hamburg. The problem of course is that Ukrainian railroads are Russian gauge and Western European are Standard.
The thought of sustained transloading at the Ukraine-Poland border is simply unthinkable to me, but will this be an invitation to "Standardize" the Ukrainian gauge, or at least enough to reach the agricultural fields?
Thoughts, anyone?
addendum: I have now learned that such is actively under consideration (paywalled; but enough is available to draw such conclusion):
Railpage.com Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Too much depends on Germany, who just has too much power in the EU and frankly is favoring Russia in spite of Chancellor Scholtz’ rhetoric.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: Too much depends on Germany, who just has too much power in the EU and frankly is favoring Russia in spite of Chancellor Scholtz’ rhetoric.
He would be afraid not to. Germany is too dependent upon Russian oil and gas, and therefore subject to blackmail by Russia. The would or are providing mainly verbal support to Ukraine only to keep the Russian Bear from feeling his oats too much.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
They did not have to be so “subjected” as it were. Trump gave them the option of buying from the USA, which they turned up their noses at (because “Trump” and his opposition to Nord Stream 2) and of course Biden put a stop to long before they might have had to actually consider it. And since they are not boycotting energy shipments by pipeline, the so-called sanctions are all for show.
In other news, in response to a question as to whether or not Ukraine would have to cede more land to Russia (think “land for peace”), Biden said the following:
quote:… (I)t appears to me that, at some point along the line, there’s going to have to be a negotiated settlement here. And what that entails, I don’t know. I don’t think anybody knows at the time. …
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: In other news, in response to "as to whether or not Ukraine would have to cede more land to Russia (think “land for peace”), Biden said the following: [QUOTE]… (I)t appears to me that, at some point along the line, there’s going to have to be a negotiated settlement here. And what that entails, I don’t know. I don’t think anybody knows at the time.[quote]
Ask the Austrians how well "land for peace" worked out dealing with Hitler. Biden as a reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain I can see as a possibility.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
The only way this war will end is with a negotiated settlement. The Ukranians have fought valliantly, but they are running out of men and munitions.
Of course, the Russians have proven to be more "Cubs" than "Grizzlies" on the battlefield. They have shown NATO that if they ever were to start a ground war against a NATO member, "we'd smoke 'em".
But the EU is tiring of the war, and there is "only so much" they will do for Ukraine. After all, "Vlad's gas pump" is a mighty strong weapon in his arsenal, and despite all the rhetoric of "we can get what we need" from elsewhere, Vlad is the cheapest and most plentiful source for such.
Yes, more arms are on the way, but how many soldiers can Ukraine divert from the battles to be trained on these weapons?
There are weapons within NATO's arsenal that the Ukrainians would be "ready to fight" with. Take the Soviet designed MIG fighter aircraft Poland has. The problem there is that some Ukranian верхній пістолет or otherwise "Top Gun" will "stray" into Russian territory and significantly escalate the conflict. It may not be WWIII as Joe has suggested, but it could "end badly" for Ukraine.
What either side will have to give up in a negotiated settlement remains unclear to me, but each will have to give up something.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Any "negotiated settlement" between Ukraine and Russia would look like the old joke about the Grizzly bear and the hunter. If you don't know that one, I will come back and tell it.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
No wars end with negotiated settlements. Only with a victor and vanquished.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I'm hardly about to say "you're mistaken, Mr. Helfner", and there is a lot of history supporting your position.
But now that it appears this conflict is becoming a war of attrition, there is no way that Ukraine can win. Russia just plain has "more of everything" needed to wage war. Even if they have been shown to be "The Three Stooges" on the battlefield, they just plain have more "Stooges" to throw into the fight.
Possibly I noted this earlier, but I had a History teacher in Secondary School (a private Boarding School) who fought (and was wounded) in the WWII Italian campaign. He once remarked in class that the only reason "we" won, is that we simply had "more of everything". If war was some kind of game with rules and each side started out with the same men and munitions, the Germans would have "whupped us big time".
But I can recall a line of script and a scene from one WWII movie or the other (I think it was "Battle of the Bulge") which showed the Germans capturing an American unit and the commander holding a parcel containing a birthday cake. He remarked to a subordinate "if they can ship birthday cake over here, what chance have we got?"
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
The war was always one of attrition when it started. However, Russia has more allies than the news media will admit, including Germany and Biden in spite of the sudden pro-Ukraine rhetoric that came out of both after Russia first pounced. All of the “sanctions” are utterly toothless, and Germany breaks promises to Ukraine all the time. Not to mention it was Biden who first said Putin “got to do something” against Ukraine, namely a “minor incursion” which of course was never going to be minor.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
For most of this time I have had a strong suspicion that Putin is of the "rule or ruin" mindset when it comes to Ukraine. In his mind it is essentially a part of "Greater Russia", and frankly his mindset is not too far beyond that of the Yankees in the 1860's. Basically, no matter how inept and corrupt the Russian military, it is operating much the same as Stalin's. We don't care how many people die, whether ours or theirs, so long as we win and we can accomplish that by sheer overwhelming manpower. I have heard, but cannot recall the source, that a 3 to 1 advantage in manpower and material will assure victory regardless of how incompetent the larger force.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Ukraine has fought valiantly, but "it's over". Get to the table and salvage what you can.
Yes, US "superweapons" are on the way, but you need Ukranian men to fire them - and those men are largely untrained. Ukraine cannot lose 2000 men in one shot (Mariupol) and expect to remain a fighting force much longer.
However inept they proved to be during the first phases of the war, back when Russia thought they could conquer the whole country in three days or less, they simply have more "assets" with which to wage war. It's no different than how "we" were able to secure a beachhead at Normandy to land sufficient men and munitions so that eleven months later that "we" and our then-Russian allies were able to defeat Germany.
The "three to one advantage" immediately noted by Mr. Harris is fast becoming reality.
But the Western World is "tiring" of the war, The USA has enough other political and economic problems to occupy "us", and Western Europe would privately like to resume normal trade relations with Russia.
So Ukraine, "get to the table"; perhaps you can salvage one of your Black Sea ports to be established as an "open port" (Danzig/Gdansk post WWI) to enable movement of your agricultural bounty, but I think you must accept that the Donbas region simply will belong to Russia.
That spells out the modern-day equivalent of a Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. IOW, the independent state of Ukraine was stabbed in the back by the EU, and their ally Biden.
Don’t forget that the saber-rattling on Putin’s side has included and still includes threats towards NATO member states, current and putatively future. What will that lead to? Appeasement does not satisfy the crocodile’s appetite.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote: IOW, the independent state of Ukraine was stabbed in the back by the EU, and their ally Biden.
Mr. Helfner, had Trump been re-elected, first, do you think this war could have been avoided, or if not, would he be of thought "let 'em fight to the last man?"
quote:Don’t forget that the saber-rattling on Putin’s side has included and still includes threats towards NATO member states
I think the ineptness of the Russian Army (and for that matter, Navy) has been placed on display to the world. If Putin dared to attack any NATO member, "he'd be smoked".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
My opinion is that if Trump had remained president this war would not have happened. One of his advantages internationally was the rest of the world considering him unpredictable, and a person that would be quick to react regardless of what others thought. Likewise, I feel that Biden's no backbone ineptitude is an essentially open invitation for China to attack Taiwan. Right now the Chinese are playing little games militarily all over the western Pacific just to see what sort of responses they will get.
The obvious ineptitude of the Russian military is mostly due to the low quality of much of the Russian industrial production plus the usual dictator's fear of anyone competent that could possibly take him out. Put along with this that any individual initiative in the military leadership and ranks will be promptly squelched, as independent thinking is unacceptable to any leadership at all levels. Militarily his operating philosophy is much like Stalin. Act as if he has unlimited manpower so that he can simply overpower his adversary with numbers.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Very insightful observations, Mr. Harris.
I cannot dismiss your thought how autocrats (such as I think Trump aspires to be, and may just be during his 47th, or depending on if Joe completes his term, 48th presidency) have a "streak" of unpredictability. Think Kim (Xi is simply too calculating) and of course Putin.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
If Trump in any way aspired to be an autocrat, he would have put the apparatus to enable that in place over the four years he was POTUS, and he would still be in the White House to this day, instead of being what he is, i.e. a private citizen. Bottom line. And he would have no support from his base in such an endeavor, since to become an autocrat he would have had to turn on them.
Comparisons of Trump with Putin, Xi and Kim are weaker than untenable based on policy, never mind electoral history. The three in question are all leftists whose policies in practice are much more like Biden’s.
This thread is not about Trump, ultimately. But as I asserted earlier here, Trump’s words to the effect that Moscow would have been struck militarily if Putin did what he did last May at any time between 2017 and early 2021 I find credible.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, I respect your thoughts regarding both Munich "appeasement" and the Austrian "Anschuls". However, both occurred before any shots were fired.
But in Ukraine, the shots have been fired, and simply Russia has more inept "stooges", and manning equally "stooge" weapons, to throw into the war than Ukraine has valiant fighters and weapons. In this case, it's not about surrendering someone else's territory, but rather bringing carnage of your own to an end.
These thoughts of mine were formulated after reading this Opinion piece appearing in today's Journal Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Then who does Ukraine’s territory belong to if not the Ukrainians?
We are witnessing a repeat of history here; and frankly, the modern-day Molotov I have referred to here did start long before the shots were fired, even dating back to when Putin annexed Crimea in 2014 (Nord Stream 2’s beginning dates back to 2011).
Not to mention, Putin continues to threaten other neighbors to Russia, some being NATO members. He has even scared Finland and Sweden into demanding NATO membership. That is very aggressive brinkmanship, and such is encouraged by having allies on the alleged other side.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Then, Mr. Helfner, what is the alternative? Fight to the last man will be just that. So what does one do when you are outnumbered by any measurement, and your allies, that will "only do so much", believe their economic interests are endangered?
Yes, whatever unit of measure of energy Western Europe (and even the USA) buys from Mr. Putin and his oligarchs represents a "Faustian pact with the Devil", they nevertheless acquire such from him.
Even if the patrons were "choking" when the Chicago Symphony performed the Ukranian anthem at one concert I attended, does not obviate the fact "it's all over" for Ukraine; and confronted with such, they had best come to the table and salvage what they can. Their sovereignty and an "open" Black Sea port (again; think Danzig) I think would be the best they can hope for.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
There would be no need to be beholden to Putin with respect to energy if the shutdown of US energy source production were reversed, of course.
Appeasing Putin with respect to territory will of course buy the appeasers more war. This makes war inevitable, especially with regard to the sad fact that no such thing had to happen.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: There would be no need to be beholden to Putin with respect to energy if the shutdown of US energy source production were reversed, of course.
First, I certainly agree with you on this point, Mr. Helfner. This "gas bad, electric good" does not enhance my lifestyle. I take road trips (at least while I can do so safely) and to sit around at a "charge station" for four some hours is "not too conducive". If, say, you use a vehicle 100 miles a day and it's a homebody (you never take road trips with it), that's fine as you just charge it up overnight in your garage.
Secondly, if Putin were dumb enough, or has dumb enough commanders, to attack a NATO member, he knows as does the whole world, he'd be "smoked".
Finally, when you have become overwhelmed in an armed conflict such as appears the case with Ukraine, not sure what alternative you have other than to come to the table. "Fight to the last man" sounds noble, but not part of Sun Tzu's playbook.
Addendum: Editorial appearing in today's Journal supporting Mr. Helfner's position.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
It should be obvious by now that Putin is not acting rationally. If he were, he would have quit as soon as he found out the Ukrainians were not going to fold in front of his approaching troops, but instead fight like their future depended upon it. (It does.) Instead, he is going for victory regardless of cost, and it appears that the Ukrainians are going to resist regardless of cost because they consider the results of surrender to be worse.
Understanding that should make all involved aware that if he decides that NATO or any NATO member is getting in his way, he is likely to respond militarily. Where that point is, he may not even have decided, but when it gets there, if not already past, we had best be prepared accordingly. One thing for certain, he is not going to send out a nice formal declaration of war when he decides that point has been reached.
The Ukrainians do and we should understand that any request for negotiations Putin will regard as a sign of weakness and will act accordingly.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
First, allow it to be noted how much I respect the thoughts of Messrs. Harris and Helfner.
But the Ukrainians are confronted with the "facts of life" that continued support by the West of what is becoming a lost cause is only going to rapidly diminish as the adverse effect upon their economic interests is realized - and when affected, how much further support can Ukraine expect? (I for one, should "Vlad the Great" shut off or down the gas, will not be too happy going over to Salzburg next month should my hotel room not have working air conditioning; hey, if you are paying €80 a night, "waddayaspect"; but I'm paying €325 and "I expect").
All told, I hold it's time "for the table"; Geneva is a wonderful town (been there '60), even if I think Luzern is nicer (been there '71). While I think Putin would first demand an unconditional surrender, I think he would be content with the territories in the culturally Russian East Ukraine that he has captured. He hasn't yet captured Odesa; and that could become the "bargaining chip" for a "Free Port".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Troubling developments that I predicted regarding the new artillery weapons being provided by NATO to Ukraine:
But absorbing this new equipment, coming in dribs and drabs from different Western countries, into the Ukrainian army is proving a serious challenge.
“The current approach by which each country donates a battery of guns in a piecemeal way is rapidly turning into a logistical nightmare for Ukrainian forces with each battery requiring a separate training, maintenance and logistics pipeline,” said the Royal United Services Institute, a London defense and security think tank, earlier this month.
The Western artillery being absorbed by the Ukrainian military include M777 towed howitzers from the U.S., Australia and Canada, and self-propelled howitzers such as the Caesar from France and the Panzerhaubitze 2000, or PzH 2000, from Germany—as well as the U.S. M109 and the AHS Krab from Poland.
“None of these systems have that much commonality…Ammunition should be interchangeable, etc. But that’s not the case,” said Jack Watling, a co-author of the report, based in part on interviews with Ukrainian military and intelligence officials.
Also, another troubling development is that as Russia captures more Ukrainian territory, Putin will instantly "annex" such to Russia. This means should Ukraine plan a counterattack in the hope of reclaiming some of this territory, they have now committed an act of aggression against "Mother Russia". Who knows what kind of response that could bring about.
Nukes?
Ukraine's NATO "handlers" have carefully restrained Ukraine to prevent any such aggression. That is why they have likely avoided giving Ukraine any aircraft, such as the "ready to fly" Polish MIG-29's.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
London’s Daily Mail reports on who Russia wants to try Ukranian soldiers for alleged war crimes.
quote:Russia has charged dozens of Ukrainian soldiers with “crimes against humanity” and wants them tried by an international tribunal led by Syria and Iran, the country’s top investigator has said.
Alexander Bastrykin, who heads the Russian Investigative Committee, said 92 Ukrainian “commanders and subordinates” have been charged with “crimes against the peace and security of mankind” over the war.
Another 96 people, including 51 of Ukraine’s top commanders, have been put on a wanted list which includes politicians and “nationalists”, Bastrykin added.
The 68-year-old said it is “extremely doubtful” whether the men could be prosecuted by the United Nations, due to what he called “the collective position of the West” in supporting Kyiv.
Instead, he told local newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta that the men should be tried by an international tribunal led by Russia’s partners. …
Iran and Syria should also be invited to join the panel because of their “independent position on the Ukrainian issue”, he added.
Both Syria and Iran have given strong backing to Russia’s war in Ukraine, and have appalling human rights records at home. …
Russia is known by its friends, and those friends have always been the most dangerous enemies of the USA, particularly Iran.
And if the “collective position of the (so-called) ‘west’” was indeed as Bastrykin said, then why are so many western nations still buying oil and gas from Russia?
It was not Zelensky building up forces on the Russian border for months on end, remember.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Associated Press reports today that two of perhaps as many as 85 missiles intended for Ukraine instead hit Poland, killing two people.
A NATO member was just hit. We shall see if the collective defense clauses of Articles 5 and 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty will be upheld.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Let us hope that cool heads will prevail. Here's more coverage from The Journal.
An unfortunate historical fact is that when Hitler started to bomb targets in Great Britain, he had specified military only. However, during a retaliatory raid, a British air crew unintentionally dropped a bomb on Berlin. That act resulted in the Blitzkrieg, which actually gave the British time to regroup their fighter and bomber aircraft assets.
addendum: the strike on Polish soil has yet to be confirmed.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Complete inversion of history. A German Luftwaffe pilot (allegedly) went off course and dropped his bombs on Central London, and that resulted in Churchill ordering the RAF bombing on Berlin.
Where would the “cooler heads” be in Moscow, is the question.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: Where would the “cooler heads” be in Moscow, is the question.
I doubt there are any cooler head in Moscow. Any that might have been probably no longer have their head connected to the rest of their body. The first rule of dealing with megalomaniacs is that you must either kill them or die. After that there are no rules. Thus, until he is taken out, becomes incapacitated or dies, this will not end.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Let it be noted that both The Times and Journal report that the Russian made missile was fired by Ukraine. Whether the explosion was an honest error that can attributed to the fog of war, or whether it was a "false flag" designed to bring Poland, and by extension NATO, into the war, will likely never be known.
Finally Mr. Helfner, the author of this Wiki article does not agree with your immediate position regarding the Battle of Britain (following quote edited by this auther).
Luftwaffe doctrine included the possibility of retaliatory attacks on cities, and since 11 May small scale night raids by RAF Bomber Command had frequently bombed residential areas. The Germans assumed this was deliberate, and as the raids increased in frequency and scale the population grew impatient for measures of revenge. On 25 August 1940, 81 bombers of Bomber Command were sent out to raid industrial and commercial targets in Berlin. Clouds prevented accurate identification and the bombs fell across the city, causing some casualties among the civilian population as well as damage to residential areas. Continuing RAF raids on Berlin led to Hitler withdrawing his directive on 30 August, and giving the go-ahead to the planned bombing offensive. On 3 September Göring planned to bomb London daily, with General Albert Kesselring's enthusiastic support, having received reports the average strength of RAF squadrons was down to five or seven fighters out of twelve and their airfields in the area were out of action. Hitler issued a directive on 5 September to attack cities including London. In his widely publicised speech delivered on 4 September 1940, Hitler condemned the bombing of Berlin and presented the planned attacks on London as reprisals. The first daylight raid was titled Vergeltungsangriff (revenge attack).
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
May I note here some additional observations and anecdotes regarding so-called WWII "Precision Bombing".
During the 1960 "Family trip to Europe", there was still quite visible war damage. At Munich, there were very noticeable buildings remaining damaged fifteen years afterward. Remembering such, one must wonder for how long after this war finally ends (my earlier prediction of a negotiated peace, as distinct from an unconditional surrender, settlement remains) will there be damage visibly remaining in Ukraine.
Finally, on my visits to Salzburg, I found out that "Wolfie's house" had been (American) bombed (sorry, but a "tourist trap" today). That structure is located some 2 klicks away from the legitimate military target of the rail facilities. Lines from Vienna, Villach (Italian border), and Innsbruck all converge there.
Well, so much for "Precision Bombing".
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Wikipedia is using sources that date from twelve years ago, one of them being Michael Korda. I presume they have abandoned their neutral POV policy without informing the public, which might be in breach of some laws.
And the track record of Adolf when it came to keeping his word was quite dismal long before the Battle of Britain.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, then perhaps that excellent twenty six episode British produced series "The World At War", where I first learned of RAF's bombing mistake prompting the Blitzkrieg, was also mistaken.
Wiki Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Yes. Jeremy Isaacs had a rather mercurial temperament, just for starters.
Back to the subject, on a tangent: WNBA player Britney Griner was released in a prisoner swap for Viktor Bout, also known as the “Merchant of Death”. If Bout were to turn his talents (loosely-termed) on Ukraine, things could get a lot bloodier in a short time.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I fear you are "on mark", Mr. Helfner.
Now insofar as Ms. Griner goes, it was a miscarriage to have "locked her up" for an offense that should have been just a citation and fine (she wasn't "trafficking"), but who had "been over there before", and simply should have known better.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
But I read it in full; and came away with the thought that the Ukrainians could possibly come to the negotiating table from a position of strength..
Some out there could read this and conclude the Ukrainians could win!!
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
I do not see Putin as the kind of leader who cares about avoiding Pyrrhic victories.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: I do not see Putin as the kind of leader who cares about avoiding Pyrrhic victories.
Agreed. In fact, I seriously doubt those around him are letting him know how bad things really are going for his troops. But, yes, if it comes down to it, he will keep going to the last, ending up like Hitler, committing suicide in a bunker or Hussain literally being found in a hole in the ground.
It does seem that the Russians are willing to negotiate, but only if Ukraine effectively surrenders first.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Messrs. Harris and Helfner, the War will end at the table. NATO will provide enough hardware to Ukraine so that they "don't lose", and while it is indeed surprising, Russia apparently cannot muster enough conventional assets to win.
Neither side wants to see "Nukes a Poppin'".
Now so far as Putin, he just may step down, but that does not mean being dragged out of a sewer (Qaddafi) or the hole in the ground (Saddam). "Vlad The Great" will spend his remaining days sailing about on his 100m yacht between one villa and the other.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Are we absolutely certain about “neither side”? Any “side” that saber-rattles with nukes is unlikely to ultimately avoid using them, and would be actually eager to use them in an offensive capability frankly. “Thanks” so much to the Rosenbergs, posthumously.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, I was overseas, visiting my Sister in London, during May 1986, or several weeks after Chernobyl occurred.
There was "concern", but not outright "panic" amongst people. Daily life went on.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Well, if that illustrates anything, it would be the difference between Gorbachëv and Putin.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Journal columnist Holman Jenkins is as good as predicting Ukraine will win:
Fair Use:
Russia today possesses a small fraction of NATO’s productive capacity and will not be able to make up the gap, never mind neither’s being under direct military threat. One close similarity with Hitler, however, is the disappearance of any prospect of gain from the war Mr. Putin started in Ukraine, which offers now only variations on loss and disaster. The war continues only to spare Mr. Putin a loss of face from admitting a truth that is obvious to 100% of the people around him.
Which brings us to the question of negotiations, faintly in the air since the prisoner trade for a U.S. women’s basketball star in early December. Mr. Putin desperately needs talks if they can get him out of the mess he created. They can’t. He waited too long and now it appears nothing can seriously alter the outcome.
It matters not if Mr. Jenkins' assessment is "on mark". It's simply time for this savage and ruinous conflict to end.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Sometime over a week ago I saw a train coming through here going southbound on the BNSF, ex Frisco Memphis to Birmingham line with about 10 DOD six axle flat cars with two tanks each, right behind the engines. I would suspect Mobile port as a likely destination, thence to Ukraine. Did not want to post this sort of information immediately after seeing it. My best guess is the M1A1 tank. I grabbed a couple pictures with my phone but it appears that I cannot attach a picture to a post here.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
A Journal article today which is "not exactly" optimistic for Ukraine's chances of eventually "not losing" the war.
In essence, the West will run out of desire to support sooner than Putin will run out of "assets":
Fair Use:
The war in Ukraine, it’s clear by now, won’t end soon. The bet in Moscow—and the fear in Kyiv—is that the West will lose stamina before Russia suffers a decisive defeat.
So far, Russia’s expectations of discord among Ukraine’s backers haven’t materialized. Europe has severed its dependence on Russian energy with limited pain and no political cataclysms. As all major Western economies grew in 2022 despite the disruptions, the consensus behind supplying weapons to Kyiv has only solidified.
Yet, with Russia announcing a mobilization of hundreds of thousands of soldiers in September and switching its economy to a war footing, time could be on Moscow’s side. So far, neither the U.S. nor Europe has made the adjustments, especially in military production, that are necessary for sustaining Ukraine in a war that could potentially drag on for several years. Neither are they immune to pain from further energy shocks.
Another point; Putin is in a fight, not for his legacy, but rather his life. If Russia decisively loses, there is all too great the chance Putin will leave this world much the same as did Mussolini, Qaddafi, or Saddam.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Another point; Putin is in a fight, not for his legacy, but rather his life. If Russia decisively loses, there is all too great the chance Putin will leave this world much the same as did Mussolini, Qaddafi, or Saddam.
Maybe not that late in the game. There are probably plenty of people in the Russian government that would gladly pull the plug on the old boy, pull the troops out of Ukraine and lay the entire blame on Putin. Even those that thought it a good idea at the start would probably like to find a way out that did not involve their own destruction, and sacrificing Putin would seem the best way possible.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Sometime over a week ago I saw a train coming through here going southbound on the BNSF, ex Frisco Memphis to Birmingham line with about 10 DOD six axle flat cars with two tanks each..
Mr. Harris, your observation could prove timely especially in light of this development as reported by The Journal
Fair Use:
BERLIN—Germany won’t allow allies to ship German-made tanks to Ukraine to help its defense against Russia nor send its own systems unless the U.S. agrees to send American-made battle tanks, senior German officials said on Wednesday.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies have over 2,000 German-made Leopard tanks, considered to be among the most sophisticated in the world, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
A "not overly optimistic" article appears in The Journal today.
Fair Use:
Behind the decision to sharply step up Western military aid to Ukraine lies a worry in some Western capitals that time might be on Russia’s side.
That concern suggests the window for Ukraine isn’t indefinite and it needs powerful Western weapons—main battle tanks, other armored vehicles and more air-defense systems—soon to reinforce the momentum it achieved in offensive successes around Kyiv, Kharkiv and Kherson last year.
I defer to others for comment.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
The tanks I saw were Abrams tanks. Compared my pictures to a good side view I saw of an Abrams tank.
Long time ago heard that baring total incompetence, a nation with a 3 to 1 advantage in manpower and willingness and determination to conquer even with a fairly incompetent military, if willing to keep going regardless of cost in material and manpower will ultimately win. That is highly likely what we have here. The only possible positive outcome for Ukraine is if they can destroy Russia's military equipment faster than the Russians can bring it in and manufacture replacements, and keep that up until the Russians simply run out of manpower as well. This incidentally was in essence the cause of the ultimate defeat of the Confederacy. They were at the manpower disadvantage of about 3 to 1 and had far less manufacturing capability and no source of imported materials and weapons.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, there is a recently published book out there that speculates on points in military history such as you have immediately inferred. Here are two of the scenarios addressed:
1) McClellan won the '64 election over Lincoln. He would have come to the table with the Confederacy and there would remain to this day on North American soil the USA and the CSA, which would have been "frenemies".
2) Had Hitler chosen not to invade Russia, he and Stalin would have divvied up Western Europe in whatever manner they chose. Not having to fight on two fronts, as well as each other, there would have been no way that the military assets needed to have conducted a successful Normandy invasion could have been amassed.
And finally, allow me to repeat the thoughts of a History teacher in Secondary School who was wounded in the Italian campaign. The only reason, Mr. Brown held, we won is that we had more of everything. Had there been a "level playing field" where each side had the same assets as the other (football), the Germans would have "whupped us".
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:McClellan won the ’64 election over Lincoln. He would have come to the table with the Confederacy and there would remain to this day on North American soil the USA and the CSA, which would have been “frenemies” …
Then the two entities would have never become world powers individually. And since the CSA was bucking the trend of history at that time, never mind the moral revival, it would have become a pariah and subject to attack from without. Neither USA nor CSA would survive. The British Empire, which banned slavery a half-century earlier and was engaged in stopping the international slave trade at the time, would have easily re-conquered the area using Canada as its base.
BTW, war is not about having a “level playing field”. Nor is it always about having overwhelming force, thus conquering by attrition and Pyrrhic tactics; the value of strategy in both WWI and WWII on the part of the USA is actively being covered up, frankly.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
NBC News aired a very ominous report strongly suggesting that Russia is on the offensive and that they will take back significant territory they have lost. This situation can only be reversed when the heavy weapons NATO plans to send and that they are combat ready for the Ukranian forces.
May we join in thought for the Ukranian people as we listen to their National Anthem Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Because a Wall Street Journal reporter writes this, he gets this Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Because a Wall Street Journal reporter writes this, he gets this
No surprises. Typical for the nature of their government. That so many people in this country are getting negative responses upto losing their jobs for making statements that disagree with the "revealed wisdom" of the momenet should have us shaking in our boots here.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
While I'm sure the Western world would relish having Russia retreat from any Ukrainian territory they have occupied since '14 (Crimea), that's not how this war will end. It will end at the table.
Now if Ukraine is able to keep at least one maritime port, such as Odessa which I don't think has fallen, a gauge conversion from Russia's wide gauge to Standard of substantial parts of her rail system would not be necessary. However, postwar, should Ukraine choose to "lean West" joining the EU (NATO would be "off the table"), part of building her economic ties would be a compatible rail system beyond the existing transloading trackage in Poland.
Who knows, might there one day be a Vienna-Kiev Rail Jet - and a Night Jet?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
While I think Joe is confident that, with him or without him physically at the table, he and Kevin will come together with a "debt ceiling deal".
With that said, Joe was off to Hiroshima for a G-7 conference - and reportedly some "sightseeing". While "Vladimir the Great" has been expelled from that group, I wish he could have joined Joe for the sightseeing especially visiting the Peace Museum.
If either of them have ideas of escalating the War to include use of nukes, a visit to this display will have them both "thinking twice".
I've been there during May '68, and that display is so gruesome that nobody would want to wish this upon anyone else if there was a means to avoid such. I'm certain that the John Hersey book with that title is far more fact than otherwise.
I'm no pacifist in this life; Truman made the right call to use The Bomb, for the alternative would have been, even though the USA in all likelihood would have been the victors, eighteen more months of war resulting in an additional one million casualties on both sides.
"Nuff said" by me; I leave this with Fox News' best contribution to journalism with their one time slogan "We report, you decide".
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Lots of confusion in the media as to what’s happened in Bakhmut, which the Russians, who claim to have captured the city (Zelensky has denied this), are calling by the Stalin-era name of Artemovsk.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
No shortage of reporting on the destruction of the Nova Kakhova dam, which resulted in several towns being flooded and nine deaths thus far.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Strange event mentioned on Twitter: apparently the flag of the USSR was raised along with the Russian flag in St. Petersburg today.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:President Joe Biden said on Monday the threat of Russian President Vladimir Putin using tactical nuclear weapons is “real”, days after denouncing Russia’s deployment of such weapons in Belarus.
On Saturday, Biden called Putin’s announcement that Russia had deployed its first tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus “absolutely irresponsible”.
That’s what happens when you say a “minor incursion” was inevitable in Ukraine and that Putin “has to do something”.