gearhog

Trump summons NATO’s Rutte to Mar-a-lago to get a peace deal.

My friend, if you wouldn't mind, could you possibly provide me with a single solitary instance from any reference you feel is credible of a "self-loathing" definition that even slightly includes the criticism of one's nation/government/etc? You have no patience for it... yet you created a definition for it that is found nowhere outside of this conversation, and invented another term that doesn't exist (us-loathing). You can't have it both ways, brother. You're attempting to collectivize all things America is and does so that anytime anyone has a criticism, you can accuse them of "loathing" their own nation. You have plenty of grievances yourself. Does that mean you loathe America? Me, Bashi, You, and everyone else should be allowed to vehemently express our disapproval with the actions of a handful of people that have the make decisions for us with out being accused of hating our Nation. They are not America. No, it isn't. If you strike a match and light the woods on fire and the neighborhood burns down because of it, there is no "we brought this on ourselves" simply because we live in the same place. You fucked up. Nope. I've given a dozen reasons for being against the conflict. The financial aspect being one of them. Absolutely I'm critical of Putin. You know I can write, and I could write a book on why Putin sucks and Russia is a worse place to live, but who cares? I'm not in Russia. If I were to give you the options "It's all Russia's fault, It's all the USA's fault, or some amount of fault lies on both sides", which would you choose? To directly answer your question, I 100% absolutely without a doubt believe we made mistakes along the way that Russia used as justification. Doesn't mean they were right, it just makes it a little more difficult to say they were wrong. We (this time I do mean me and the rest of the country) are both paying dearly for mistakes made on both sides. It's past time to negotiate an end. Where the hell to you think the current trajectory is taking us? Russia has nukes, and demonstrated yesterday they can deliver them at Mach 14. Yeah, so can we... but what you're hoping for is a Pyrrhic victory at best. I get a little amped over this because I have a big family, kids, and now grandkids. I've participated in conflicts myself and had no real concerns over my own well-being. But if someone becomes a threat or creates a risk to the people I care about, I am violently offended. The way I see it, Russia doesn't pose a direct threat or risk to them. The actions of our leaders do, so I feel compelled to speak about it.

The reason you cannot understand it is because you're mis-identifying a loathing of poor leadership, foreign policy, and intervention as a loathing of "self". I'm gonna go out a limb and say not one member of this forum "loathes" the United States of America. I'd say everyone here loves it, and wouldn't want to live anywhere else. It's insulting for you to say that those of us who do not want to see a continuous escalation of this conflict and others, who don't want more of our taxes and national treasure pissed away, who critique and question the policies/actions taken by leadership on behalf of me and my country is "self-loathing". It's actually the opposite. Surely, you were deployed, probably multiple times, in your career. I got to see all of IRQ, AFG, part of SYR, (countries we invaded) waste $trillions, countless lives lost, and then shamefully walk away leaving the countries in worse shape than we found them. I was all in, just like you at the beginning. But I try to do a little after action, reflecting upon and learning from our mistakes. I could argue that the actual self-loathing would be standing by as an ineffectual as the same leadership subjects yourself, your family, and your country to the same misadventures all over again.

Not just interesting, it's the best summary I've seen from someone who has been personally involved with the Ukrainian government at a high level in the early parts of this crisis. The arguments made here are becoming circular so it's kind of a waste of time, but it would be nice if some of you could put aside your fears, biases, and clearly see the designed and intended progression of this conflict so that there is ultimately a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. The same Western leadership that has brought us all kinds of bullshit from a policy mismanagement standpoint; domestically and internationally, socially and financially... is somehow making brilliant decisions on this issue? It is a retarded line of thinking. It is an undeniable fact that the current leadership of the United States and most NATO countries do not care about the best interests of their citizens. Most people are coming to realize this as indicated by the election. What they do care about is retaining power and streams of revenue. As we the people begin demanding order and civility, War and crisis are the things that guarantee their opportunities for profit continue. When I read many of the replies here, I'm always reminded of "Doctor Strangelove." The unreasonable obsession with the idea that we're somehow under threat of a Russian invasion was supposed to be a joke, but it seems like so many are reenacting those sentiments, but sincerely, and without realizing how ridiculous it seems. NATO leadership realizes it has 60 days get us entrenched in a conflict that can't easily be de-escalated. Therefore: And how does Russia respond? The launched an ICBM. I thought ICBM were kind of a big deal. Not one average European citizen realized that an ICBM was in the air. No alarms, no emergency broadcasts, no nothin. Why? As I said, acting in the best interests of the population is not the real modus operandi here. You likely won't know either. God forbid we have even the possibility of a negotiated settlement that results in the cessation of hostilities, and the flow of cash.

If you like your invasions justified, I have some history you'll enjoy reading.

The AF is healing? https://www.af.mil/Diversity/

Their playbook has a single page. https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/15/politics/trump-transition-hegseth-allegations/index.html

Matt Gaetz for AG. Tulsi Director of National Intelligence Thisbis going to be the most amazing/entertaining 4 years of our lifetime.

Oops... https://x.com/TaskandPurpose/status/1854722364895834495https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-fires-commander-nuclear-missile/ https://x.com/TaskandPurpose/status/1854722364895834495

LOLWTF. Add this dipshit to the resignation list. "Air Force Col. Matthew N. McCall overturned a decision by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reversing three pretrial agreements signed by a senior retired general he put in charge of military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, saying Austin did not have the power to do so and that he had acted too late. " https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/06/us/politics/gitmo-plea-agreement.html

"I will ask for the resignations of every single senior military official who touched the Afghanistan disaster. I want their resignations immediately. And I want them on the desk of the Oval Office at twelve o'clock, Inauguration Day." https://x.com/Osint613/status/1853181484640735326

"Let's just get along and move forward" isn't going to happen. Trump has been prosecuted and ridiculed over his claims of a stolen election for four years. Is he the type of guy to shrug it off and focus on the future? He is going to turn the federal government inside out to resolve what happened in 2020. The biggest data destruction event in US history is going to take place in the next couple months. However, I believe there will be a lot of people that will retain evidence to protect themselves.

I doubt there is one yet. Putin knows Trump is going to impose one so he's signalling he's ready to negotiate. The solution has never been difficult. Divi up the territory that's been fought over, call it a draw, keep Ukraine neutral, and agree to hold elections free from Russian and USA influence.

Not even 24 hours later: Awesome.

Secretary of Agriculture: Thomas Massie. Great news. https://x.com/_Regenaissance/status/1854238840963428588

Whatever happens tomorrow, we all need to remember… it’s Russia’s fault. 🤪

Does that statement work conversely? "So, NATO wants everyone to be friends, and leave Russia vulnerable....I don't think that's going to go anywhere soon." All nations/organizations are motivated by some level of self-interest and preservation. Russia knew before hand it couldn't go toe to toe with the US and the rest of NATO in a conventional conflict. Apparently, that's the reason it proposed the above security guarantee in December 2021. "The Parties shall not create conditions or situations that pose or could be perceived as a threat to the national security of other Parties." All the restrictions in the language Russia proposed applies to Russia as well as NATO. On the surface, it appears to be a reasonable attempt at freezing the expansion of both parties and resolve disputes through diplomacy. I suppose one could make the claim that Russia proposed the agreement only so they could later break it, but ...why? One could also argue the US and NATO have reneged on as many treaties and agreements as Russia, but all agreements typically work for a while. Huh? They made an appeal for peace and it was rejected. They went with alternative. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-russia-united-states-moscow-72856781c3b92640d03c5e954488ba90 Russia sucks. It's a terrible country with terrible leadership. But what is our leadership really trying to achieve? Only the withdraw of Russian troops and safety/security of the noble Ukrainian people and it's democracy... or the collapse of Russia? That begs the question they often raise: "Should the world exist without Russia in it?" They don't want to answer that question and I don't think we should press them to. Negotiate an end.

The referenced 2014 recorded phone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt talking about how to manipulate the Ukrainian election and using Biden to endorse their choice.

There will be no clear winner.

Jeffrey Sachs answers questions about Ukraine and Russia at the Cambridge Union at the 1:05 mark. Nails it. The rest of his talk is good, also. The draft treaty he references that was put forth by Moscow (I hadn't seen this before): 17 December 2021 13:26 Agreement on measures to ensure the security of The Russian Federation and member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization The Russian Federation and the member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), hereinafter referred to as the Parties, reaffirming their aspiration to improve relations and deepen mutual understanding, acknowledging that an effective response to contemporary challenges and threats to security in our interdependent world requires joint efforts of all the Parties, determined to prevent dangerous military activity and therefore reduce the possibility of incidents between their armed forces, noting that the security interests of each Party require better multilateral cooperation, more political and military stability, predictability, and transparency, reaffirming their commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the 1994 Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, the 1999 Charter for European Security, and the Rome Declaration “Russia-NATO Relations: a New Quality” signed by the Heads of State and Government of the Russian Federation and NATO member States in 2002, have agreed as follows: Article 1 The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other Parties. The Parties shall settle all international disputes in their mutual relations by peaceful means and refrain from the use or threat of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. The Parties shall not create conditions or situations that pose or could be perceived as a threat to the national security of other Parties. The Parties shall exercise restraint in military planning and conducting exercises to reduce risks of eventual dangerous situations in accordance with their obligations under international law, including those set out in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of incidents at sea outside territorial waters and in the airspace above, as well as in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of dangerous military activities. Article 2 In order to address issues and settle problems, the Parties shall use the mechanisms of urgent bilateral or multilateral consultations, including the NATO-Russia Council. The Parties shall regularly and voluntarily exchange assessments of contemporary threats and security challenges, inform each other about military exercises and maneuvers, and main provisions of their military doctrines. All existing mechanisms and tools for confidence-building measures shall be used in order to ensure transparency and predictability of military activities. Telephone hotlines shall be established to maintain emergency contacts between the Parties. Article 3 The Parties reaffirm that they do not consider each other as adversaries. The Parties shall maintain dialogue and interaction on improving mechanisms to prevent incidents on and over the high seas (primarily in the Baltics and the Black Sea region). Article 4 The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties. Article 5 The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties. Article 6 All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States. Article 7 The Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia. In order to exclude incidents the Russian Federation and the Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct military exercises or other military activities above the brigade level in a zone of agreed width and configuration on each side of the border line of the Russian Federation and the states in a military alliance with it, as well as Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Article 8 This Agreement shall not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting the primary responsibility of the Security Council of the United Nations for maintaining international peace and security, nor the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations. Article 9 This Agreement shall enter into force from the date of deposit of the instruments of ratification, expressing consent to be bound by it, with the Depositary by more than a half of the signatory States. With respect to a State that deposited its instrument of ratification at a later date, this Agreement shall enter into force from the date of its deposit. Each Party to this Agreement may withdraw from it by giving appropriate notice to the Depositary. This Agreement shall terminate for such Party [30] days after receipt of such notice by the Depositary. This Agreement has been drawn up in Russian, English and French, all texts being equally authentic, and shall be deposited in the archive of the Depositary, which is the Government of … Done in [the city of …] this [XX] day of [XX] two thousand and [XX]. https://medium.com/@felixabt/newly-released-documents-prove-that-russia-preferred-peace-and-stability-over-war-73b9dde694fb

Sorry, I need to retract my earlier "14-15 years" response to this question. The rate of advance isn't linear according to today's issue of the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/31/world/europe/russia-gains-ukraine-maps.html

Watch and listen.

Trump: Old, loud, unsophisticated, shoots off at the mouth, takes enemy fire up close, they keep trying to get rid of him but he sticks around longer than anyone thought. Harris: Remote controlled, annoying to be around, a threat to US citizens. Goes down a lot.

For the record, I did say that analogy was bit of a reach. I might need to tweak it a little. In spite of what most here believe, I don't nail it every time. 😄 However... Your contention is that there is gigantic industry around tracking and analyzing election results and voter habits. You've been surveyed a dozen times, likely with the same spam text messages I get. Partial ballots are tracked. Ok. Fine. All of that means absolutely nothing. The proof is in the pudding. The science does not work. If you believe that it does, how would you explain the net result of this industrial sized effort is the US electorate consistently receiving poor quality options? You have a lot of faith in a voter feedback system that yields a presidential candidate with one of the lowest approval ratings in history and receiving zero votes in the primary and another who is a reality TV star who says crazy shit. Where was the science? I don't like the system, either. But you don't get to choose your choices. Hmmm... now that you mention it, I suppose I do vote to feel somewhat brave. It takes a little courage to commit yourself to a decision that isn't perfect isn't a guarantee, and may have drawbacks. Not making a decision is easy and takes zero courage. "I just vote for what I think is best" and in the very next line say Trump is the better candidate. A few words later, you accuse my position of being laughable. Huh? Simply put: Voters matter, non-voters do not.

Whatever. This thread needs pics.