The Ukraine war thread
-
At least four oil tankers have been hit with explosions so far this year — all of them having visited Russia’s territorial waters in the weeks prior to the blasts happening.
“All the indications are that these have been deliberately orchestrated, but it’s with a significant degree of sophistication,” said Munro Anderson, head of operations at Vessel Protect, a major war-risk insurer of ships. “So, the big question that leads to is: ‘by who?’”
-
I watched this video this morning. it certainly presents a different view. I wondered at the time if such NATO expansion was a great idea, but was unaware of the guarantees Sachs claims the west made after the fall of the Soviet Union. It may well be that we abandoned such ideas when Russia tried to take Georgia, then Crimea and then eastern Ukraine even before the 2022 incursion.
Link to video -
Tucker interviewed him a few days ago, if you'd like to hear more from him.
Link to videoThere are plenty of people who are only framed as "nutters" because they happen to disagree with the party line. If they agreed with the party line, their credentials would be plenty to hold them up as exactly the sorts of people who should be listened to.
-
I'm not sure I do. He seems to have a tenuous grasp on historical truth.
-
I watched this video this morning. it certainly presents a different view. I wondered at the time if such NATO expansion was a great idea, but was unaware of the guarantees Sachs claims the west made after the fall of the Soviet Union.
It’s a popular misconception (read disinformation) promoted by the Kremlin itself. You are not alone.
The claim got its start in 1998 on Russian TV when NATO went after Serbia over Kosovo. It got ramped up again in when Putin gave his belligerent Munich speech (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin)
It has now become gospel for the likes of Jeffery Sachs, John Mearsheimer and a host of people in the West who really ought to know better.Gorbachev himself refuted the claim a decade ago:
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
Edit: I see now that you covered this in your subsequent post and link to The Hill. Think of my post here as affirmation of your follow up post..
-
Ok. I’ve never ever seen an Oval Office meeting like this.
-
-
Zelensky has an interesting attitude. He thinks the anti-Trump crowd in America is useful leverage for him. I'm not sure he's right. The usual crowd will love this as Zelensky smiting Trump from the right side of history, but it is far from obvious to me that his attitude is helpful.
-
I guess all Trump wants is "thanks" but like, to hear it a lot. Over and over.
Reminds me of the ending:
Link to video -
All Zelenskyi did was point out the fact that previous diplomacy attempts with Putin - ie The Minsk Accords - all failed. In every instance Putin broke the agreement and resumed his aggression. Vance pounced on him and accused Zelenskyi of litigating the war in the cherished Oval Office. The yelling match then escalated. It came off as Vance acting as agent provocateur. If I didn’t know better, I would say it was choreographed.
It is nothing short of a disaster.
-
I think Zelensky surprised them by not even attempting to be diplomatic or deferential. That's his choice, but he's probably not well advised to think it'll be effective with Trump. He must be hoping it'll be effective with the western media who are already on his side. I'm sure they'll love it, I'm just not sure how meaningful that is.
