Colors of Blue and Gold

[Joe Elliott]

Have the Ukranians ever acknowledged that it was one of their missiles that fell into Poland killing two people?

How could the Ukrainians tell if it was one of their missiles or the Russian's? They haven't been able to examine the site of the missile strike.

Not knowing the details of this case, I can still note a fact that points to the Russians. The latitude of the strike in Poland matches the latitude of the center of Kiev. And the longitude matches the longitude of Lviv. Both Kiev and Lviv are large Ukrainian cities. The match is within six miles. That's a pretty big coincidence. It could be that there were two targets, one near the center of Kiev and the other near the center of Lviv and a Russian crossed up the latitude and longitude of the targets. I think it would be interesting to find if their was any sign of a missile strike near the latitude of Lviv and the longitude of Kiev. If this occurred in some empty field or swamp, it might not be obvious.

Has the US intelligence community ever confirmed who pulled off a highly sophisticated operation to blow up the Russian pipelines?  Where is the leftist media when it comes to stories like this that might result in WWIII?  Oh year, they have nothing to do with Trump.

It would be hard to tell for certain. But the Russians have the motive. To put additional pressure on Germany not to continue to support Ukraine. Russian ships were observed near the location the gas leaks erupted from a few days later. Also, a pipeline to Georgia mysteriously blew up in 2006 when they sought membership in NATO. Perhaps it's all just a coincidence. But I don't think so.

[Richard Smith]

Insufficient reasons for not stopping the march of Authoritarianism while we can. Let's just do it. The iron is hot. Besides, I don't think the Russians will last the winter. Too much Russian corruption. Too much poor logistics for their army to stand during a cold winter. They had enough problems getting adequate supplies up to the front during warm weather. But we shall see.

A relatively small investment now, just ten per cent of our yearly defense spending, may greatly reduce the need for such a large amount of defense spending in the years to come. If the threat of Russia is removed, I don't see why we couldn't get away with a 20 % reduction in defense spending in the years to come. We surely won't need to spend as much to defend against China alone as we will need to continue to defend against both China and Russia. It's a good gamble.

When will the Biden administration be "stopping the march of Authoritarianism" in China?  The most authoritarian police state in the history of the world in which millions are enslaved or in camps.  There will never be a reduction in the defense spending.  If the war in Ukraine ever comes to an end, they will find a new cause to sell the rubes on to fund another war.  A pattern that has continued for the last five decades.  The military and its contractors need a cause (insert fighting Communism, terrorism, saving democracy) to justify their enormous budgets and profits.  The war goes on for decades and ends in disaster after telling the public for decades how well it is going and we only need to stick it out a bit longer.  That money is kicked backed to politicians (both repubs and dems) who ensure that one war is replaced by another.  The US has been funding a foreign war continuously for almost thirty years with no end in sight.  Imagine if even a fraction of that money had been spent on the homeless, education or health care.  We could almost be one of those European socialist countries who can afford such luxuries because the US has paid for their national defense for the last 70 years and counting.

[Richard Smith]

How could the Ukrainians tell if it was one of their missiles or the Russian's? They haven't been able to examine the site of the missile strike.

Not knowing the details of this case, I can still note a fact that points to the Russians. The latitude of the strike in Poland matches the latitude of the center of Kiev. And the longitude matches the longitude of Lviv. Both Kiev and Lviv are large Ukrainian cities. The match is within six miles. That's a pretty big coincidence. It could be that there were two targets, one near the center of Kiev and the other near the center of Lviv and a Russian crossed up the latitude and longitude of the targets. I think it would be interesting to find if their was any sign of a missile strike near the latitude of Lviv and the longitude of Kiev. If this occurred in some empty field or swamp, it might not be obvious.


It would be hard to tell for certain. But the Russians have the motive. To put additional pressure on Germany not to continue to support Ukraine. Russian ships were observed near the location the gas leaks erupted from a few days later. Also, a pipeline to Georgia mysteriously blew up in 2006 when they sought membership in NATO. Perhaps it's all just a coincidence. But I don't think so.

The US has indicated the missile was fired by Ukraine.  They said that pieces of the missile were found in Poland and it is of the type being used only by Ukraine.  Ukraine denies they fired this missile and were encouraging the US and NATO to declare war on Russia.  These are mutually exclusive explanations.  So one or the other is lying. 

Your theory about the pipeline is that the Russians needed to blow up their own pipeline to stop the flow of oil?  You don't think they could just stop sending it?  You don't think the US and/or its allies know exactly what happened given that this had to be a sophisticated operation conducted at sea?  And if it were the Russians, they would have provided that evidence.  Suppose the US or its allies were behind this attack.   Wouldn't that be an act of war on Russia that could precipitate WWIII.  Don't you think the American public needs to know if the US is behind an attack on a sovereign nation?  Instead the lead story on many cable networks has been about who attended dinner with Trump.

[Joe Elliott]

Russia Is Losing the War. Give Ukraine the Weapons to End It

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-is-losing-the-war-give-ukraine-the-weapons-to-end-it/ar-AA14RI2G?cvid=1af6960512f240a8aa9c119c21b8a795

This article makes a great point:

As brilliantly argued by Timothy Ash, it has only cost the U.S. 5.6% of its annual military budget to decimate Russia’s conventional armed forces. This pales compared to the trillions of dollars in military expenditures that the U.S. has invested to deal with Russia over the last 8 decades. Evidently, NATO military assistance has altered the course of the war in favor of Ukraine.

What has our 5.6 % investment (of our annual defense budget) in Ukraine gotten us? The through trashing of the Russian army. How is this not a good investment of our money?

The trashing of the Russian army is a great accomplishment. It greatly lessens the threat of Russia overrunning Europe. If Ukraine prevails, Russia will be greatly discouraged from going on similar adventures in the future. Their population may, to a certain extent, become pacifists, like the populations of Germany and Japan after World War II.

With the threat of the Russian army greatly reduced, I don't see why our defense budget could not be cut by 10 % each year., as we only concentrate the threat of China attacking Taiwan.

The threat of China is much less than that of Russia, simply because I don't think China's ambition extends beyond Taiwan. I think they just want to take everything that the old China used to control. At least, I hope that's true. In any event, reducing the threat of the Russian army should save us a great deal of money in defense spending over the coming decades.

It's funny. The same people who complain about the spending for Ukraine, are the same people who had no problem with our large defense budget over the years. I always thought we overspend on defense. I now think I was wrong. Other countries are tempted to use conventional war to get what they want. The Nuclear age has not made it impossible for an aggressor to wage conventional war to take over other countries.

Question:

Why is it the same people who are upset about our spending for Ukraine, were never bothered by the trillions we have spent on U. S. Defense?

This doesn't make sense, because our spending on Ukraine is clearly a good bet. A relatively small investment, with the possibility of huge savings in the coming years. Even if supporting Ukraine only has a 10% of success, that is, defeating Russia and reducing our defense budget by 10 % for the next 20 years, it's a great bet. Do the math.

I think the real reason, is that some people like to see the expansion of Authoritarianism, the expansion of Dictatorships. If Russia is successful, it may mean that Authoritarianism is inevitable, that Authoritarianism will eventually succeed in other places, like the United States. An appealing notion for those who support Trump.

And it is mostly people who have supported Trump who don't like our support of Ukraine, correct?

[Richard Smith]

Russia Is Losing the War. Give Ukraine the Weapons to End It

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-is-losing-the-war-give-ukraine-the-weapons-to-end-it/ar-AA14RI2G?cvid=1af6960512f240a8aa9c119c21b8a795

This article makes a great point:

What has our 5.6 % investment (of our annual defense budget) in Ukraine gotten us? The through trashing of the Russian army. How is this not a good investment of our money?

The trashing of the Russian army is a great accomplishment. It greatly lessens the threat of Russia overrunning Europe. If Ukraine prevails, Russia will be greatly discouraged from going on similar adventures in the future. Their population may, to a certain extent, become pacifists, like the populations of Germany and Japan after World War II.

With the threat of the Russian army greatly reduced, I don't see why our defense budget could not be cut by 10 % each year., as we only concentrate the threat of China attacking Taiwan.

The threat of China is much less than that of Russia, simply because I don't think China's ambition extends beyond Taiwan. I think they just want to take everything that the old China used to control. At least, I hope that's true. In any event, reducing the threat of the Russian army should save us a great deal of money in defense spending over the coming decades.

It's funny. The same people who complain about the spending for Ukraine, are the same people who had no problem with our large defense budget over the years. I always thought we overspend on defense. I now think I was wrong. Other countries are tempted to use conventional war to get what they want. The Nuclear age has not made it impossible for an aggressor to wage conventional war to take over other countries.

Question:

Why is it the same people who are upset about our spending for Ukraine, were never bothered by the trillions we have spent on U. S. Defense?

This doesn't make sense, because our spending on Ukraine is clearly a good bet. A relatively small investment, with the possibility of huge savings in the coming years. Even if supporting Ukraine only has a 10% of success, that is, defeating Russia and reducing our defense budget by 10 % for the next 20 years, it's a great bet. Do the math.

I think the real reason, is that some people like to see the expansion of Authoritarianism, the expansion of Dictatorships. If Russia is successful, it may mean that Authoritarianism is inevitable, that Authoritarianism will eventually succeed in other places, like the United States. An appealing notion for those who support Trump.

And it is mostly people who have supported Trump who don't like our support of Ukraine, correct?

The same people who told us things were going well in Vietnam and Afghanistan for decades and we just needed to keep at it for a while longer and spend more billions are the same folks telling us this fairy tale about Ukraine.  The war has destroyed the country.  US bombs are being used on Ukranian cities, bridges, and roads.  They are killing Ukranian citizens and extending the war.  There is no effort being made to find a way to end it.  The money is being stolen by Ukranian oligarchs.   The weapons are unaccounted for and risk ending up in the hands of terrorists on the black market.  But some folks who stand to benefit are claiming it is all good.  So that's that.

[Jon Banks]

Biden can help Zelensky, and Ukraine, by pushing for peace

If an enduring peace can be had through negotiation — and we won’t know if it can until we explore that prospect — then negotiations would be in America’s interest. That alone might be enough reason for Biden to steer Ukraine toward the table. But as it happens, such a peace would be in Ukraine’s interests — and most of the world’s — as well.

To start with some of the more mundane virtues of near-term peace: The war is costing America lots of money. And this spending is inflationary at a time when inflation is a big global problem. The war also fuels inflation in other ways, notably by constricting the supply of energy to European allies. And, as those allies buy American natural gas as a substitute, some European officials are accusing the United States of profiteering, revealing tensions within the West that could grow as the winter proceeds.

Meanwhile, every day the war continues, more Ukrainians die, and more of Ukraine gets wrecked. And every day there is some risk of a fluke turning this into a wider war, featuring direct NATO involvement. Even if such a war didn’t go nuclear, the devastation could be vast. “World War III” might be an overstatement — but it might not (especially in light of a recent report that China and Russia have a secret mutual defense agreement).

So, what are the arguments against a peace that leaves Russia in control of some Ukrainian territory? The most common one involves a goal shared by the United States and Ukraine and many other countries: giving Russia a big dose of negative reinforcement for invading its neighbor. This punishment could deter Russia from repeating such aggression and deter other countries from aggression by reinforcing the norm against attacking sovereign nations (even if, awkwardly, the United States has violated that norm — which is also an international law — more than once in recent decades).

Obviously, pushing Russian troops back to pre-2014 lines (Zelensky’s stated goal) or even pre-February lines, would be a powerful form of negative reinforcement — and the more powerful the better. But it’s important to see that, even without that, this war has been extremely costly for Russia and for Vladimir Putin.

Samuel Charap, an expert on Ukraine at the Rand Corp., recently said, “Russia has already lost no matter where the line is. Russia’s strategic defeat … is already a thing. That’s done.” The reason, he said, is the “astonishing damage to (a) their military capabilities, (b) their international reputation, (c) their economy, their capacity to rearm. I mean, Russia has weakened itself in the last nine months more than any U.S. policy … could have done.”

In other words: Even if Russia held onto all or most of the territory it now has, its February invasion would be seen — by it and by other countries — as a very cautionary tale, in stark contrast to its casual seizure of Crimea in 2014.

Of course, there is one argument against a peace deal that, especially from Ukraine’s point of view, is potent: Justice demands that Russia give back all the land it took. But that’s a compelling argument for more war only if Ukraine has a good chance of getting the land back through continued fighting — and getting it back at acceptable human cost. The current state of play on the battlefield casts doubt on that premise...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/02/how-biden-help-ukraine-zelensky/

[Joe Elliott]

Biden can help Zelensky, and Ukraine, by pushing for peace

Ukraine has already taken back 50 % of the land taken by Russia in the first month of invasion of 2022. Let's say they take back another 25 %, regaining a total of 75 %. And then make a peace deal.

This would be a good deal for Ukraine? Russia would have learned this lesson? No. Putin would control the narrative. We would spin it as a hard won victory. And while gaining only a small slice of Ukraine in 2022-2023(?) war may seem minor, it still puts Russia closer to taking back all of Ukraine. They would be free to try again once they rebuild their military.

Remember, Russia has a history of launching an aggressive war, suffering major defeats, and coming back for more. They tried to overrun Poland in 1920. And suffered a major defeat. Learned their lesson? No, they just came back in 1939.

Do I think Ukraine can take back all of the gains Russia made in 2014 and 2022? I think this may be tough. As the Russians get pushed back to their own border, they get closer and closer to their own source of supplies. Russia logistics are not very strong. They can't support a deep advance into Ukraine. They don't have enough quality trucks. They could really use some Lend Lease Dodge trucks like the thousands they had in 1943-1945. But at some point, within a few miles of the border, they should be able to hold. Still, if the army morale suffers enough, who knows?

The two things Ukraine can and should take back are:
1. The Crimea Land Bridge.
2. Crimea.

The Crimean Land Bridge should be relatively easy. It's a logistical nightmare. A long narrow corridor leading a relatively long way back into Russia. Might even be possible to trap a good portion of the Russia army with their backs to the very shallow Sea of Azov, with a low to zero chance of evacuating.
Crimea seems tough. But once they take the Crimea Land Bridge and destroy the Russia build bridge (not to be confused with the 'Crimean Land Bridge') it will be isolated and they should be able to take it back.

Losing Crimea, Losing the Naval Base at Sevastopol, that the Russians took in 2014 would be a big psychological blow. It might be enough to convince Russians that war is not the answer.

Who knows. Maybe Russian morale will collapse enough for the Ukrainians to take back all their territories. But they better not make peace without taking the Crimean Land and Crimea. Otherwise, the Russians are sure to come back once they have rebuild their army and rigorously rid it of excessive corruption. They will be too encouraged by whatever gains they end up with from 2022 not to press on a few years down the road.

Is their risk in doing this? Yes. Russia may use Neclear weapons. But if we don't stand up to them at some point they can overrun Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland, Germany and beyond. If we are ever going to stand up to them, it had better be now. Or not at all.

If we back down now, but make a strong stand later, for let's say Poland, Russia is bound to think that the threat of Nuclear War was enough in 2023. Surely a few real Nuclear Strikes will work in 2030.

We must make a strong stand now. Or rigorously resolve not to make a strong stand in the future against any Russian advance. Making a strong stand now, or resolving not to make a strong stand ever, are our two best options. Backing down now, but making a strong stand later, is our worst option.

Question for both Jon and Richard, or anyone else?

Which option do you believe we should make?

1. Make a strong stand now.
2. Not make a strong stand now, but do so if Russia tries again, as it did in 2014 and 2022.
3. Not to ever make a strong stand in Europe, anywhere, no matter what Russia invades. The risks of Nuclear War are just too great.

And, as always, it's important not to dodge tough questions. Facing questions is the key to coming to better understanding. Otherwise, one is stuck in always maintaining one's current beliefs.

Can either of you answer one simple, tough question?