Ukraine

[french frank]

Well, I understand that Ukraine will want to defend itself by any means, in the here and now. But as teamsaint says, this didn't happen in an historical or geopolitical vacuum, and one has to be cognizant of that fact, as well as of any ulterior motives the US has for selectively defending Ukraine - these should interest people in knowing what should be done, don't you think?

I'll think about your question if you answer mine Politicians don't have the luxury of standing back and mulling over historical or geopolitical considerations. As Harold Macmillan said, they get overtaken by events, dear boy, events. Some people are more taken up with the philosophical and theoretical, others with the here and now.

An analysis of the current situation would be more valuable than who did what where in 1965 leading up to the current situation and whose fault it was. That's history.

[Dave2002]

I don’t believe the US has ulterior motives for “selectively defending Ukraine” - but that’s just my opinion. An aggressor nation, which is what Russia currently is, needs to be checked so that it doesn’t spread its aggressive tendencies to other regions. Further, any trust which may formerly have been given to Russia must now surely have been blown away. Trying to do peace deals with the knowledge that the opposing signatories are completely mendacious is hardly likely to make any sense.

[Joseph K]

I'll think about your question if you answer mine

I did, in my first sentence.

Politicians don't have the luxury of standing back and mulling over historical or geopolitical considerations. As Harold Macmillan said, they get overtaken by events, dear boy, events. Some people are more taken up with the philosophical and theoretical, others with the here and now.

An analysis of the current situation would be more valuable than who did what where in 1965 leading up to the current situation and whose fault it was. That's history.

Who is talking about 1965? Are you really sure that politicians - especially ones of hegemonic superpowers - really don't have geopolitical considerations? What I'm talking about is relevant - and I've heard nary a word from you about practical measures for ending the war ASAP.

So, while I wouldn't deprive Ukraine their weapons, it does make them beholden to the US's interests - that's obvious.

[eighthobstruction]

.... well for whatever reason the Dollar is stronger than ever....

[teamsaint]

I did, in my first sentence.




Who is talking about 1965? Are you really sure that politicians - especially ones of hegemonic superpowers - really don't have geopolitical considerations? What I'm talking about is relevant - and I've heard nary a word from you about practical measures for ending the war ASAP.

So, while I wouldn't deprive Ukraine their weapons, it does make them beholden to the US's interests - that's obvious.

Whilst politicians may have to respond to events from the very recent past , and to anticipate future events, I am certain that they,and especially those that advise,them, EG the military, certainly do respond in a way that is formed by geopolitics and a historical perspective…the stuff they learned in naval college or wherever . It is “in their DNA”.

[teamsaint]

.... well for whatever reason the Dollar is stronger than ever....

Indeed, and the press and media are as selective as ever in their quotes and comparisons.
The rouble doing ok too ?

[french frank]

I did, in my first sentence.

You should be a politician. The question was: Do you think the US should be supplying arms to Ukraine? Your first sentence after that was: Well, I understand that Ukraine will want to defend itself by any means, in the here and now.

Who is talking about 1965? Are you really sure that politicians - especially ones of hegemonic superpowers - really don't have geopolitical considerations? What I'm talking about is relevant - and I've heard nary a word from you about practical measures for ending the war ASAP.

So, while I wouldn't deprive Ukraine their weapons, it does make them beholden to the US's interests - that's obvious.

1965 was a random date the in the past = history. It had no particular significance. In a general sense, yes, the US will think of Ukraine as being part of Europe, a traditional ally, and Russia as being historically 'on the other side'. And they would know of moves to join the EU and Nato. But I'm not so sure that the US would supply arms to Ukraine if it was in order to launch incursions into Belarus or Moldova. These are fundamental questions about what an independent sovereign country has a right to do and what are flagrant abuses of international law.

[french frank]

.... well for whatever reason the Dollar is stronger than ever....

"Why the dollar is strong and why that is a problem"

This seems to sum it up.

Monetary policy
Investor confidence
Energy exporter
Weakness of other currencies

[richardfinegold]

No - just wondering why the US chooses to defend Ukraine but not other countries such as Yemen - in fact, why they (and the UK) will supply Saudi Arabia with arms to wage that war. Why do you think that is? The US (and often the UK) has form for supporting authoritarian regimes across the globe and deposing democratic ones they don't like. That's obviously not the case in this instance, but one has to wonder why that might be, there may be strategic reasons that the US has for this because I for one do not buy the idea that US foreign policy is benignly motivated - just a coincidence in this instance. Pointing out these things does not make one a Putin-apologist.

If the Saudis don’t fight to keep the Straits of Hormuz free of control by the Houthi’s of Yemen, then Iran can cut the supply of Oil to Western Europe. It won’t affect the U.S. but sure will effect the ability of yourself to read the on line pronouncements of the like of Noam Chomsky, among other uses of your time. In general, the House of Saud-placed on their throne by the British-are preferable as a counterweight to those fun loving mullahs in Iran .

[Joseph K]

If the Saudis don’t fight to keep the Straits of Hormuz free of control by the Houthi’s of Yemen, then Iran can cut the supply of Oil to Western Europe.

How is that the case? if you don't mind me asking - what link is there that stops Iran cutting off our supply of oil so long as the Houthis don't control the Straits of Hormuz?

In general, the House of Saud-placed on their throne by the British-are preferable as a counterweight to those fun loving mullahs in Iran .

Be interested to hear why you think this is the case. I don't know that much about these countries but I know Saudi Arabia in particular is barbaric.

[french frank]

This is no less than China's policy towards Tibet. Suppress the culture and replace it with their own, including language, with brutality and torture. The next step on the Chinese model is to systematically resettle Russians in the occupied areas.

[richardfinegold]

How is that the case? if you don't mind me asking - what link is there that stops Iran cutting off our supply of oil so long as the Houthis don't control the Straits of


Be interested to hear why you think this is the case. I don't know that much about these countries but I know Saudi Arabia in particular is barbaric.

I find your usage of “What about” isms to justify the Russian aggression/criminality troubling

[french frank]

Quote Originally Posted by Joseph K View Post
How is that the case? if you don't mind me asking - what link is there that stops Iran cutting off our supply of oil so long as the Houthis don't control the Straits of Hormuz

Be interested to hear why you think this is the case. I don't know that much about these countries but I know Saudi Arabia in particular is barbaric.

I find your usage of “What about” isms to justify the Russian aggression/criminality troubling

Can we stick to Ukraine, just at the moment?

In latest news Poland is now sourcing its gas from a new pipeline from Norway.

And some Russian reports say that the Ukrainians have taken Lyman.

[Joseph K]

I find your usage of “What about” isms to justify the Russian aggression/criminality troubling

This is my last word on this matter (as french frank and others will be relieved to hear) but: my whole point is that I do not consider Russian aggression or criminality just, any more than I consider US aggression and criminality regarding Iraq and numerous other countries just. I am not selective about this - others might be.

Hopefully this is explicit enough to avoid misinterpretation. I was going to say other things, but I would just probably be repeating myself or give rise to further misinterpretations etc.

[Dave2002]

So, while I wouldn't deprive Ukraine their weapons, it does make them beholden to the US's interests - that's obvious.

As opposed to voluntarily giving up weapons earlier with “guarantees” of protection by one of the current aggressors making them “voluntarily” beholden to that country’s interests - perhaps?