Russia and Ukraine

[fallenarch]

Where is the UN? It has traditionally been the UN that established a no-fly zone over non-European countries. But the UN is hampered by the veto authority given to the founding members, including Russia.

UN should evict Russia, then implement no-fly zone in Ukraine

Basically, the UN is even more dysfunctional than usual when one of the primary members is the aggressor, and it looks like that's how this is going lately (China & Taiwan too maybe?). But Russia was never admitted to the security council, they assumed the USSR's seat. Why can't Ukraine claim the USSR seat?

So why is the media pushing the US to go it alone and guarantee a world war when the UN can oust Russia and come in properly? Are they like @jellyrug and relying on foresight and forgetting the right answer is right there in history?

PS: Looks like Biden is doing the right thing again. He is forcing the UN to do its job and avert a world war by giving member nations cover to go into Ukraine. Sometimes the perspective of an old man brings with it wisdom.

 

[Bumblebee]

This is what you wrote:

Quote: Do you honestly think the world respected the US before? The world was scared of the US but didn't respect it....
Unquote:

Here is the thing Bee. Once you write something on the internet, it may stay there forever. Scroll back up to your post and read it a few times out aloud. Perhaps then you will realize what you actually wrote.

..........and?

Maybe I'm really, really dense (I don't believe I am) but I'm not seeing your point.

Nowhere in that statement was there any indication that I personally held that sentiment.........

Perhaps it is you yourself who need to go re-read posts....your responding post centered directly on my personal ideology towards the US whereas mine was pointed toward the world at large.

We are all entitled to our opinions....we all have them and we all share them......when the day comes that we are unable to do so, we may as well shut off our devices and go find something else to do.

 

[Bumblebee]

Where is the UN? It has traditionally been the UN that established a no-fly zone over non-European countries. But the UN is hampered by the veto authority given to the founding members, including Russia.

UN should evict Russia, then implement no-fly zone in Ukraine

Basically, the UN is even more dysfunctional than usual when one of the primary members is the aggressor, and it looks like that's how this is going lately (China & Taiwan too maybe?). But Russia was never admitted to the security council, they assumed the USSR's seat. Why can't Ukraine claim the USSR seat?

So why is the media pushing the US to go it alone and guarantee a world war when the UN can oust Russia and come in properly? Are they like @jellyrug and relying on foresight and forgetting the right answer is right there in history?

PS: Looks like Biden is doing the right thing again. He is forcing the UN to do its job and avert a world war by giving member nations cover to go into Ukraine. Sometimes the perspective of an old man brings with it wisdom.

In my experience with working in UN areas, they have no teeth and in today's clime, organizations who don't have teeth get ignored.

While we were in Bosnia under the UN, we were ignored by all sides...it wasn't until we were under NATO (non-article 5) is when they started to listen to us as we were then allowed to bring arms to the table.

As seen in this write up, Russia has no real worry about what the UN does to them...

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[jellyrug]

..........and?

Maybe I'm really, really dense (I don't believe I am) but I'm not seeing your point.

Nowhere in that statement was there any indication that I personally held that sentiment.........

Perhaps it is you yourself who need to go re-read posts....your responding post centered directly on my personal ideology towards the US whereas mine was pointed toward the world at large.

We are all entitled to our opinions....we all have them and we all share them......when the day comes that we are unable to do so, we may as well shut off our devices and go find something else to do.

The world is a pretty big place. When you make a statement saying that the world does not respect the US, perhaps you should state upfront that you consider yourself as not being part of the world. Otherwise it could be perceived as rather abusive to all Americans.

Anyway, that is how I read and interpreted it, you have now cleared it up, by saying you do not consider yourself as part of the world at large.

As I mentioned, my experience is different to yours, I believe there is a lot of respect for the US in the world at large.

 

[fallenarch]

In my experience with working in UN areas, they have no teeth and in today's clime, organizations who don't have teeth get ignored.

While we were in Bosnia under the UN, we were ignored by all sides...it wasn't until we were under NATO (non-article 5) is when they started to listen to us as we were then allowed to bring arms to the table.

As seen in this write up, Russia has no real worry about what the UN does to them...

MSN

www.msn.com

Not the point. We are all aware of the UNs failures. But if we go in under the UN it's Russia against the World. If we go in unilaterally it's the US against the world and politically there is a big difference there. There is also the possibility that in the US direct confrontation it escalates to some really destructive tech really fast. I don't understand why a leader would not try and get the UN to do their job before risking it all going in alone.

PS: Also going alone would be the best thing we could do for Putin politically.

Historically going it alone has been disastrous for the US, and the same media that's trying to push Biden into the wrong decision would flip immediately when an American city takes a hit, even a non-nuclear hit. Putin is smart and he knows confronting the full attention of US attention will not end well. He will reach out to the US mainland, where a strike will make Americans turn on the war immediately. It would be as bad a decision for Biden as going into Ukraine was for Putin in the first place.

So in terms of boots on the ground, there is no difference between us going in alone and going in under the UN. However, in terms of containing Putin, Russia vs the US is very different than Russia vs the entire World. There is also the issue of who will pay for all of this. The UN can sanction Russia but we can only get reparations for the damages done to Ukraine by getting a full surrender from Russia - a very destructive and bloody proposition.

 

[fallenarch]

The world is a pretty big place. When you make a statement saying that the world does not respect the US, perhaps you should state upfront that you consider yourself as not being part of the world. Otherwise it could be perceived as rather abusive to all Americans.

Anyway, that is how I read and interpreted it, you have now cleared it up, by saying you do not consider yourself as part of the world at large.

As I mentioned, my experience is different to yours, I believe there is a lot of respect for the US in the world at large.

I think what Bee was saying is that people in the world certainly respect (fear) the US' power both economically and militarily, but the moral high ground we walked on coming out of WWII has been severely shaken. Vietnam, various conflicts in the middle east, Afghanistan, and Iraq have all seriously brought into question our belief in spreading democracy and human rights vs, a new kind of colonialism.

 

[michael parris heuberger]

I'm surprised it's made it this far without placing blame on Trump for Ukraine, the price of gas, the inflation numbers, North Korea launching missiles about once a month, the loss of jobs, lack of creation of jobs, the chip shortage, the loss of the bridge in Pa., the influx of illegals going unchecked at the Texas border, and both the Cuomo brothers being scumbags around women.

I'm impressed.

Hi. OH come on Tall Tom every one on the left knows that it is all Teumps fault. It grinned here yesterday and I know Trump had something to do with it. He just wanted to mess up the for us liberals in New Bedford Ma.

 

[fallenarch]

^That was helpful.

 

[jellyrug]

I think what Bee was saying is that people in the world certainly respect (fear) the US' power both economically and militarily, but the moral high ground we walked on coming out of WWII has been severely shaken. Vietnam, various conflicts in the middle east, Afghanistan, and Iraq have all seriously brought into question our belief in spreading democracy and human rights vs, a new kind of colonialism.

Not sure if the word colonialism is a good fit here.

Vietnam started due to the concern of communism taking hold in Asia, a domino effect where the first country falls, then the next, etc.
In a certain way it started off pretty much the same as where we are with Ukraine right at this moment.

Today we have attacks right on the border of Poland, and threat of attack on convoys supplying weapons to Ukraine as being legitimate targets.

 

[fallenarch]

I did say "new kind of colonialism". The idea of spreading democracy was designed to create sustainable governments (and markets) and spread this doctrine worldwide. If you want the details, look at the Marshall Plan it is all explained there. We (basically the allies minus Russia) believed that creating a global economic structure that was co-dependant was the way to stop endless wars and elevate more people to a better way of life.

Believe it or not, the French involvement in Vietnam goes back to Nepolean and the 1850s! It was absolutely a colonial investment for the French and they pursued developing it more aggressively in the 1950s. When the French left abruptly, the US did not want the country to fall to the Chinese, hence the common idea that it was an attempt to stop the spread of communism. Obviously, that was actually the same old colonialism on our part.

So my point "all seriously brought into question our belief in spreading democracy and human rights vs, a new kind of colonialism" refers to the fact that our propaganda was about human rights when it became clear we were in large part driven by the MIC and the corporation's insatiable appetite for consumers and resources. Which finally, goes back to the comment by Bee that the US had lost respect.

 

[fallenarch]

Not the point. We are all aware of the UNs failures. But if we go in under the UN it's Russia against the World. If we go in unilaterally it's the US against the world and politically there is a big difference there. There is also the possibility that in the US direct confrontation it escalates to some really destructive tech really fast. I don't understand why a leader would not try and get the UN to do their job before risking it all going in alone.

PS: Also going alone would be the best thing we could do for Putin politically.

Historically going it alone has been disastrous for the US, and the same media that's trying to push Biden into the wrong decision would flip immediately when an American city takes a hit, even a non-nuclear hit. Putin is smart and he knows confronting the full attention of US attention will not end well. He will reach out to the US mainland, where a strike will make Americans turn on the war immediately. It would be as bad a decision for Biden as going into Ukraine was for Putin in the first place.

So in terms of boots on the ground, there is no difference between us going in alone and going in under the UN. However, in terms of containing Putin, Russia vs the US is very different than Russia vs the entire World. There is also the issue of who will pay for all of this. The UN can sanction Russia but we can only get reparations for the damages done to Ukraine by getting a full surrender from Russia - a very destructive and bloody proposition.

I meant the US against Russia, not the world.

 

[fallenarch]

This is really good, it is long but if you want to understand what's up in Ukraine, its a quick way to reach a good understanding. Unfortunately, I think you have to be a paying member of Youtube to see it. If you are, copy the url

 

[mark3evo]

This is really good, it is long but if you want to understand what's up in Ukraine, its a quick way to reach a good understanding. Unfortunately, I think you have to be a paying member of Youtube to see it. If you are, copy the url

unfortunately i cannot view it ot copy it

 

[jellyrug]

I did say "new kind of colonialism". The idea of spreading democracy was designed to create sustainable governments (and markets) and spread this doctrine worldwide. If you want the details, look at the Marshall Plan it is all explained there. We (basically the allies minus Russia) believed that creating a global economic structure that was co-dependant was the way to stop endless wars and elevate more people to a better way of life.

Believe it or not, the French involvement in Vietnam goes back to Nepolean and the 1850s! It was absolutely a colonial investment for the French and they pursued developing it more aggressively in the 1950s. When the French left abruptly, the US did not want the country to fall to the Chinese, hence the common idea that it was an attempt to stop the spread of communism. Obviously, that was actually the same old colonialism on our part.

So my point "all seriously brought into question our belief in spreading democracy and human rights vs, a new kind of colonialism" refers to the fact that our propaganda was about human rights when it became clear we were in large part driven by the MIC and the corporation's insatiable appetite for consumers and resources. Which finally, goes back to the comment by Bee that the US had lost respect.

I grew up in a country where we were determined to keep communism out and where the Soviet Union were determined to install communism. Their methods were training of terrorists, using propaganda towards creating a revolution and encroaching our borders from neighboring countries. In industry, trade unions did not have the objective of being there for labor, their objective was simple. It was an objective of destabilizing the country, without labor using the ability to put food in the table.

After the Soviet Union was disbanded, the communist agenda changed to capitalism, with immense corruption on the side. But today, they will still support Putin while trying to appear neutral.

What started as Colonialism, changed to an independent republic, but with the Soviets and the West competing for who has the most influence. China and Russia won in the end gaining their loyalty.

So in short, I have lived and walked the path, of how the West and Russia competes for dominance leaving behind a country which will not resolve it’s issues during my lifetime.

It will be interesting to see how the Ukraine situation ends, and how much the West is willing to interfere. For me it is a simple struggle of autocracy (China and Russia) against democracy ( The West) I believe in the end freedom and democracy will win, and Putin will make history as a failure. The question is just how much damage will be done in the process.

 

[fallenarch]

You grew up in a country of minority rule, with an African population that would have followed Bozo the Clown to overthrow you. Apples and oranges.

Ukraine is a developed country with a majority-based government with a president supported by a majority of the people and elected democratically. Big difference. Note also that Ukraine has an army of 250K well-motivated soldiers.

I agree that Russia will lose this. Putin is going to get more and more desperate and we are going to get more and more drawn into this. Putin is claiming we have chemical weapons labs there, a precursor to him using them in desparation. Also reports that we are directing the Ukrainian air forces from AWACS flying outside the border (like Britan in WWII with radar). Putin is probably already dead politically in Russia. HE has exposed his own weaknesses to the world.

 

[jellyrug]

You grew up in a country of minority rule, with an African population that would have followed Bozo the Clown to overthrow you. Apples and oranges.

Bozo the clown lost that battle and we were never invaded. We had nukes, which helped, a first class military, navy and airforce.

So yes that was apples and oranges, but for a different reason.

And just a reminder, that minority rule was inherited from British Colonialism, with a majority already siding with the Soviets, prior to the country getting independence. Mandela had an option, denounce violence and the association with the Soviet Union and engage in negotiations for his freedom. He decided not to exercise that option, but once the Soviet Union was disbanded, the threat was gone, he got freedom and fair elections followed. He is dearly missed today, as he did a super job, different story today unfortunately.

Interesting, today a democracy with fair elections and majority rule, however still fond of Russia and China.

Let's hope the Ukraine saga does not spill over to NATO with direct involvement.

Pity we are not more liberal with refugee assistance. I could happily employ and assist a few Ukrainian carpenters towards establishing a new life over here.

 

[jellyrug]

Would Ukraine have happened under a different US Administration?

Let’s look at recent history.

Russia helps Syria with acquiring chemical weapons.

March 20, 2013 Obama draws a red line, says if Syria uses chemical weapons, it would be a game changer. Warns Putin.

April 29, 2013: A helicopter dropped canisters allegedly containing chemical weapons on the town of Saraqeb. Eight people claimed symptoms such as nausea and breathing problems, and one of them later died.

August 28, 2013: The United States has concluded that the Assad regime conducted chemical weapons attacks against civilians, President Obama said in “PBS NewsHour.” Obama said he had not yet made a decision whether to take a military action in Syria.

August 31, 2013: President Obama made a statement saying that he would seek an authorization for the use of force from Congress for a limited military strike in Syria. Given the evidence of chemical weapons use by the Assad regime in the August 21 attack, Obama said he supported limited action in order to deter further chemical weapons use and uphold international norms. From here the only thing which happens over several months is the apparent destruction of hundreds of tons of chemical weapons. Nothing more.

April 4, 2017: Chemical weapons were used in an attack that killed dozens of people in Syria's northern Idlib province. Initial reports suggest the attack used sarin gas, a nerve agent. The attack is believed to have been perpetrated by the Syrian government, due to the type of aircraft in the area at the time. The OPCW announced that it is investigating the reports. Syria denied it was responsible.

April 6, 2017: Trump reacts immediately and warns Putin. The United States used Tomahawk cruise missiles to target an air base in Syria. The Assad regime is believed to have conducted the April 4 chemical weapons attack from that base.

June 26, 2017: The White House issued a release saying it identified "possible preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime." The statement said that Assad will "pay a heavy price" if he conducts an attack using chemical weapons. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said in a separate statement that by supporting the Assad regime, Russia and Iran would also be accountable for any further use of chemical weapons.

April 13, 2018: The UN Security Council met for the fourth time that week to discuss chemical weapons use in Syria. Russia and Bolivia continued to urge the United States against taking unilateral military action as the United States, France and the United Kingdom seemed to make the case for a strike. "Should the United States and our allies decide to act in Syria, it will be in defense of a principle on which we all agree, U.S. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said.

France, the United Kingdom and the United States launched precision strikes on three Syrian chemical weapons facilities. In a televised address to the nation, President Trump explained that the purpose of the strike was to "establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons." He continued "To Iran and Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children?" Syrian state television reported that its air defense system had shot down 13 of the missiles, although the United States later denied that any missiles had been engaged. Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov said in a statement shortly after the announcement of the strike: "We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences."

There were no consequences which followed.

Fast forward to 2022, Russia blames the West that they are attempting regime change in Syria.

Let’s look at current events.

The Biden Administration broadcasts, they do not want WWIII, after Putin draws red lines. They continue to broadcast fear of offending Putin, considering anything other than sanctions and arms assistance. Putin smiles.
Today, Putin dares more, he requests military assistance from China.

IMHO, I believe the Ukraine invasion could have been prevented, before it even started.

And yes, Trump is bad news, but there were some positives.

 

[TallTom]

Would Ukraine have happened under a different US Administration?

Let’s look at recent history.

Russia helps Syria with acquiring chemical weapons.

March 20, 2013 Obama draws a red line, says if Syria uses chemical weapons, it would be a game changer. Warns Putin.

April 29, 2013: A helicopter dropped canisters allegedly containing chemical weapons on the town of Saraqeb. Eight people claimed symptoms such as nausea and breathing problems, and one of them later died.

August 28, 2013: The United States has concluded that the Assad regime conducted chemical weapons attacks against civilians, President Obama said in “PBS NewsHour.” Obama said he had not yet made a decision whether to take a military action in Syria.

August 31, 2013: President Obama made a statement saying that he would seek an authorization for the use of force from Congress for a limited military strike in Syria. Given the evidence of chemical weapons use by the Assad regime in the August 21 attack, Obama said he supported limited action in order to deter further chemical weapons use and uphold international norms. From here the only thing which happens over several months is the apparent destruction of hundreds of tons of chemical weapons. Nothing more.

April 4, 2017: Chemical weapons were used in an attack that killed dozens of people in Syria's northern Idlib province. Initial reports suggest the attack used sarin gas, a nerve agent. The attack is believed to have been perpetrated by the Syrian government, due to the type of aircraft in the area at the time. The OPCW announced that it is investigating the reports. Syria denied it was responsible.

April 6, 2017: Trump reacts immediately and warns Putin. The United States used Tomahawk cruise missiles to target an air base in Syria. The Assad regime is believed to have conducted the April 4 chemical weapons attack from that base.

June 26, 2017: The White House issued a release saying it identified "possible preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime." The statement said that Assad will "pay a heavy price" if he conducts an attack using chemical weapons. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said in a separate statement that by supporting the Assad regime, Russia and Iran would also be accountable for any further use of chemical weapons.

April 13, 2018: The UN Security Council met for the fourth time that week to discuss chemical weapons use in Syria. Russia and Bolivia continued to urge the United States against taking unilateral military action as the United States, France and the United Kingdom seemed to make the case for a strike. "Should the United States and our allies decide to act in Syria, it will be in defense of a principle on which we all agree, U.S. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said.

France, the United Kingdom and the United States launched precision strikes on three Syrian chemical weapons facilities. In a televised address to the nation, President Trump explained that the purpose of the strike was to "establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons." He continued "To Iran and Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children?" Syrian state television reported that its air defense system had shot down 13 of the missiles, although the United States later denied that any missiles had been engaged. Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov said in a statement shortly after the announcement of the strike: "We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences."

There were no consequences which followed.

Fast forward to 2022, Russia blames the West that they are attempting regime change in Syria.

Let’s look at current events.

The Biden Administration broadcasts, they do not want WWIII, after Putin draws red lines. They continue to broadcast fear of offending Putin, considering anything other than sanctions and arms assistance. Putin smiles.
Today, Putin dares more, he requests military assistance from China.

IMHO, I believe the Ukraine invasion could have been prevented, before it even started.

And yes, Trump is bad news, but there were some positives.

Just one example summarized. Pretty succinctly. It's not that Trump was so good. He sucked in a LOT of ways.

Which is what makes it even sadder.

 

[macka]

The world is a pretty big place. When you make a statement saying that the world does not respect the US, perhaps you should state upfront that you consider yourself as not being part of the world. Otherwise it could be perceived as rather abusive to all Americans.

truth be known half the world politicaly hates the US, not limited to but China, Russia,Middle East as a start

 

[Zerks]

truth be known half the world politicaly hates the US, not limited to but China, Russia,Middle East as a start

Want to take a shot at why these countries leaders hate the USA? could it be a little bit of jealousy and penis size envy?
These leaders that you say hate us would probably be doing the same kind of activities we are doing if they had the financial and military power that the USA has.

I have never watched Game of Thrones but this worlds headline could be...

Who will win the game of thrones.