Isn't it obvious? There's no side he is willing to take. — ssu

Indeed, he keeps making reference to scifi movies. He supports Ian Solo maybe?

What's tiresome on this thread, which is why I'm not really participating anymore, is the inability of some posters to accept any form of criticism of the US and NATO policy for decades contributing to the current situation — Benkei

At least I have tried to say where the US and the West has made errors, with the crucial one being promising to Ukraine and Georgia something that they wouldn't keep and hence putting both countries in a perilous state.

Yet it should be noted that totally disregarding the role of Putin and Russia is not only biased but simply wrong. Also to totally disregard the third parties as mere puppets is wrong. There aren't any monocausal issues in history and just blaming the West and stating that "I don't care" about Putin's actions isn't perhaps the smartest thing to do.

I don't trust the Western narrative and won't unless it's corroborated by different sources and that generally takes a few months to clear up, considering how often we've been lied to. — Benkei

One shouldn't then take for granted what Russia says either. There's so many blatant lies it is similar to picking up the truths in what Trump says. So going with the narrative that the Kremlin promotes is after a point a bit dubious. Likely the US can tell the truth when it fits their agenda. Similarly would Russia behave.

Just to refer one who before the invasion was launched, wrote about his intentions: "Just disrupting the rosy media-friendly picture of the poor underdog Ukrainians being set upon by nasty thugish Russia." — ssu

That aged well...

The only organisms useful as bioweapons are spore formers that will survive without extreme cold and isolation from the enviornment outside tissue, for example: anthrax.

Weaponizing those spores isn't about editing genes related to infection. It's about making the spores hold together in a super light powder that will spread through the air and get into people's lungs. Anthrax spores themselves aren't terribly dangerous because the risk of them getting into your lungs is quite low.

It'd be terribly effective in a large buildings' ventilation system. It's fairly shit fired in a shell because VX would kill people much quicker, as would conventional shells.

Aside from that, you have organisms that produce toxins, botulism for example. These just aren't as good as available nerve agents as weapons. The risk here is only that they are easier to make, so non-state actors could use them.

Communicable diseases are hard to deliver and it is impossible to ensure they won't spread in your population. I think we just saw great evidence of why they would be a terrible idea as weapons with COVID. Anything contagious enough to be sure to do a lot of damage is also going to infect your population and military.

Communicable diseases make more sense if you attack livestock.

Using communicable diseases on people or livestock is a strategic level, nuclear tier response in every sense, a thing other countries with nukes have stated would be conditions for a nuclear retaliation, so that's were they become fairly useless. Nuclear weapons deliver faster, act faster, are plenty effective, and are essentially means of intercontinental counter battery fire to destroy your opponents weapons. Thus, you would always use those first in escalation, since destroying the enemy's nuclear capability is the #1 means of security.

The Soviets always looked at communicable diseases as something you use with nukes. A way to hit the surviving rural population. It turns out to be incredibly difficult, impossible with current technology, to launch a relatively delicate virus into space, fire it down into a population center, and somehow get the organism to disperse in a way it has any chance of infecting people.

You're talking about organisms that are destroyed by sunlight in most cases and cannot survive long outside tissue. Not the ideal fragility for a deterrent. At least nuclear warheads take a decade or more to stop working. ICBMs are already hideously expensive to maintain in readiness, so you're not going to waste them on less effective weapons. The cost to modernize a vastly reduced US deterrent from today to 2029 is almost $600 billion (Russia's total defense spending for a decade).

We know from Obama era reports that the US nuclear arsenal was a neglected shit show. The arsenals that exist on paper are many times the number that exist in a state of readiness. This is almost certainly more true for Russia. When you can't afford to maintain current strategic deterrents, why would you spend on worse, more theoretical ones?

For strategic investments, the US is all about its Interceptors. These are even more expensive than ICBMs, and have an unencouraging 57% chance to bring an ICBM down meaning many have to be used for each target. Publicly, I think there is around 40, with a bunch more in production and the program has already cost like $130 billion. Any money for MAD related projects is going to get sucked up into the missile defense budget because now that they've successfully shot down ICBMs they've unfortunately made their case for spending even more ridiculous sums on a program that will always be too risky to test.

Whole point being, it makes no sense, especially in Ukraine.States don't stockpile huge amounts of samples and even if they did, said samples would be fairly useless as weapons outside of infecting spies and having them cough on people.

Although Zelensky is of course a huge celebrity in the UK already... — Isaac

I don't know if you have seen Zelenskyy's latest interview with Vice TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpmglcRV71Q&t=319s

I can only say that Vladimir Putin knows, as we all do, that ensuring his Zelenskyy's safety is essential to Russia's aims. Making a hero out of him will be the worst thing for Russia and will make Ukraine more difficult to manage as a puppet regime.

Are there alternatives to puppets?: was Emperor Hirohito kept in place as a "puppet" after the Allies won the second world war?

I quote from the transcript. Draw your own conclusions.

The subtitles are not captured: so here I transcribed them as accurately as I could, check for yourself. (This part is marked as 'music' on the transript)

"We are thankful to NATO... but we wanted to be equal..apparently quality costs a lot"..

"I know they want to fight to the last soldier, the last military man"

"I would like to save our heroic soldiers"

"But we will defend our land as long as we can"

7:09
can you make a compromise with putin can
7:12
you trust putin
7:14
trust
7:15
oh no i trust only my family
7:18
i trust my family my people
7:21
now when we united our great
7:24
great people great nation i trust

....

7:35
we have to because to stop this war
7:38
how to stop this war only dialogue and
7:41
only dialogue with him he the president
7:43
of russia ...

Don’t know whether to put this here or in the Trump thread but oh well.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/03/exclusive-kremlin-putin-russia-ukraine-war-memo-tucker-carlson-fox/

Treasonous c***t. — Wayfarer

Fox and Tucker Carlson are well loved by Russian propaganda.

On Wednesday, Carlson claimed that the “Russian disinformation they’ve been telling us for days is a lie and a conspiracy theory and crazy and immoral to believe is, in fact, totally and completely true.”

https://russian.rt.com/ussr/news/974175-nuland-karlson-biolaboratorii-ukraina

"Fox host Carlson: Nulland in effect confirmed the existence of secret labs in Ukraine"

Zelensky is amazing. Holy shit.

The reason to focus on EU / NATO and US policy is because:

A. They have the most leverage with Russia currently. — boethius

Actually, the most leverage on Russia has now China.

Russia is now dependent on Chinese imports, while for China exports from Russia aren't so important. That Russia now wants to get arms from China is a historical first. If true, it's a major change as before it has been all the time the other way around. To ask arms from China also shows that there have been true losses on the Russian side. And there's a multitude of those pictures of destroyed armour.

(dupe, see subsequent comment)

Yep, and Elvis is still alive too apparently — Isaac

Try throwing rocks and swear words at ... Defense industry of Russia (Wikipedia), Russia and weapons of mass destruction (Wikipedia), Infographic: Which countries buy the most Russian weapons? (Al Jazeera; Mar 9, 2022), Rosoboronexport (has a number of Putin quotes towards the bottom by the way), ... :D The invader has taken an initiative. Words/rocks ... no difference.

Europe and the US are aiding Ukraine alright — Olivier5

Right, Ukraine seems to have overwhelming support faced with the invasion, as well they should (nations, organizations, smaller groups), almost from day 1. Russia doesn't, as well they shouldn't.

Quote spam ...

The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. — Plato (-429 — -347)

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. — sometimes attributed to Edmund Burke (1729 — 1797)

Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. — John Stuart Mill (1806 — 1873)

Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. — Elie Wiesel (1928 — 2016)

The Russians have free rein in Ukrainian airspace to monitor and bomb. (Including bomb civilian areas; must be kind of "boring" for the pilots?) Maybe that's all the advantage they need.

I don't trust the Western narrative and won't unless it's corroborated by different sources and that generally takes a few months to clear up, considering how often we've been lied to. If I see Russians firing at a flat, then I'm wondering whether they were fired upon from that position and we've just not been shown that. I have no way of knowing but I do know we get maybe 5% of what's actually going on. — Benkei

At least Putin's demands don't seem like fake news. No NATO membership for Ukraine, ... It's something to take to the talking table.

Looks like Russia is taking a breather. Simply to stack on supplies and some brigades that have endured losses have been withdrawn.

Here's an interesting map showing also NATO forces in NATO countries. And refugees. Also the higher military units, like the 1st GTA (1st Guards Tank Army).



Quite similar to the Finnish Defense University's map, so that's two different references portraying a similar situation:

...

States don't stockpile huge amounts of samples and even if they did, said samples would be fairly useless as weapons outside of infecting spies and having them cough on people. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So why...

we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach — Nuland

Try throwing rocks and swear words at ... Defense industry of Russia (Wikipedia), Russia and weapons of mass destruction (Wikipedia), Infographic: Which countries buy the most Russian weapons? (Al Jazeera; Mar 9, 2022), Rosoboronexport (has a number of Putin quotes towards the bottom by the way), ... :D The invader has taken an initiative. Words/rocks ... no difference. — jorndoe

As ever your point is as clear as mud.

The problem with lobbying (I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this) is industries using financial influence to bring about policies that wouldn't otherwise come about.

That Russia has arms manufacturers is irrelevant because, as we're regularly reminded, Satan himself is in charge of Russia in an autocratic dictatorship, so we're not really concerned about the influence the arms industry might have. If he wanted to increase their wealth, they wouldn't need a war as a pretext, he could just order a dozen jets just to sit on the tarmac.

IMF managing director expects "deep recession" in Russia (Mar 13, 2022)

That effective?

Satan himself is in charge of Russia — Isaac

Republicans love him. You're the only one thinking in supernatural terms. Weird.

@StreetlightX Worse perhaps even that the Hollywood heroism - the heartless selection of who's in the plot and who isn't...

as someone who has followed and worked on migration and refugee protection for years, it is also maddening to watch this and realize that we were capable of such a response all along. Europe has worked diligently over the last decade or two to build one of the world’s most violent borders; including routine pushbacks that are linked to thousands of drownings every year. Dozens have drowned in the last few days alone.

Then there are the exchange deals of the kind that return people to slavery in Libya, alongside a vast and expanding web of military and surveillance infrastructure policing the sea, and the widespread criminalization of rescuers — Nathan Akehurst in the Jacobin

The role of selective compassion in all this has been commented on at length. In the UK, a Sunday Times newspaper cartoon welcomes refugees from this crisis, in a sharp departure from the section’s previous tasteless racism on the issue. As well as aid, one can even buy military equipment for irregular Ukrainian forces in online crowd-funders; something that in any other case would get you swiftly put on a watch-list or worse.

this is partially because the surge in violence has in this case been driven by a rival power rather than a NATO country or ally, as in the cases of Yemen or Iraq. But Europe’s swift moves to slam the door to Afghans fleeing the Taliban — hardly a friendly regime — last fall suggest that straightforward racial as well as geopolitical concerns inform such markedly different responses.

In my country, suddenly we can afford £350/month per refugee. Two weeks ago we apparently couldn't even afford the dignity of not drowning them.

Because Nuland is not a CBRN expert either. Obviously, the Russian messaging on chemical and biological weapons resulted in some DoD analyst having to throw together a report; the type of thing you present to Congressional intel committees.

The threat of a bunch of conscripts seizing a BSL lab is pretty obvious. It's full of dangerous pathogens that require professional training to secure. You don't want military personnel blundering through it.

Since they have no evidence of CBRN threats in the area, this is probably the only bullet point outside "Russia could shell positions with anthrax, sarin, etc."

The whole exchange is likely staged, a way to tell the media "we're worried that Russian messaging about CBR might be evidence that they are planning to use CBR." Open hearings after closed ones are where Congressmen like to give themselves ego boosts by answering pointed questions about things they already know the answers to.

The conclusion about the messaging is dumb anyhow. Russia has been accusing the US of building biolabs in countries they want to influence for years. Generally it was the lab in Georgia. Apparently those secret bio weapons aren't worth invading over or something...

Because Nuland is not a CBRN expert either. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yet...

Open hearings after closed ones are where Congressmen like to give themselves ego boosts by answering pointed questions about things they already know the answers to. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which is it, uneducated blunder or pre-prepared propaganda piece? If you're answering the question "does Ukraine have biological weapons?" in a preplanned attempt to ensure the world is abundantly clear they don't, do you not think "No" might have been quite an important part of any answer?

Do you think there was some meeting where Nuland's advisor was saying,

"Now, Victoria, they're going to ask you if Ukraine has biological weapons. They don't of course, and it's vitally important that you make it absolutely clear they don't",

" OK, so I should say 'no' then"

"No, that would be too obvious, we've got an elaborate double bluff planned..."

"...?"

"Russia could shell positions with anthrax... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why would they do that when...

It's fairly shit fired in a shell because VX would kill people much quicker, as would conventional shells. — Count Timothy von Icarus

...and...

The weapons, as I've pointed out, just aren't very useful outside of terrorism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

...?

You just seem to want to have your partisan cake and eat it.

Perhaps you could clarify. Are biological weapons so useless that there's little need to stockpile them (in which case, why are we hyping up the threat of the Russians using them), or are they a viable weapon the Russians might use (in which case, why wouldn't America want to keep a stock somewhere with plausible deniability if they're found)?

, as the case may be, you don't get to decide if someone invades you or not, they do, and, as the case may be, you don't get to decide if they have a bunch of TOS-1s Su-34s ☢s or not, they do.
You might get to decide whether to do something or not.
An excellent opportunity for Machiavellian evil capitalists, wouldn't you say?
I suppose you might scrap it all and hope for the best.
Or, do you think everyone agrees to scrap it all? ☮

The Russians have now launched nearly 810 missiles against Ukraine -- almost half have been fired from within Ukraine using mobile platforms. The rest have been fired from Russia, Belarus, and a small number from the Black Sea. This is up from an estimate of 775 missiles offered by the official Thursday. — Ukraine using drones to 'great effect' on Russian forces: Pentagon updates (ABC News • Mar 11, 2022)

George W. Bush said "Russia is not the enemy". George Bush, Tucker Carlson...Donald Trump... all Republicans. It seems like a partisan thing here, but not to worry, each person will decide who the enemy is and whom to vote for.

NATO was a thing of the past then.

Our nations also agree on the importance of a new NATO-Russia Council that will be launched in a few days in Rome. And, Mr. President, this council is also a tribute to your leadership and your vision. For decades, Russia and NATO were adversaries. Those days are gone, and that's good. And that's good for the Russian people, it's good for the people of my country, it's good for the people of Europe and it's good for the people of the world. — George W. Bush, May 24, 2002, White House Archives

My emphasis

Meanwhile that Ukraine growth rate (a crude measure of economic well - being ) needs to pick up. Maybe it will, post - war.

Ukraine gdp growth rate for 2020 was -4.02%, a 7.24% decline from 2019.
Ukraine gdp growth rate for 2019 was 3.22%, a 0.18% decline from 2018.
Ukraine gdp growth rate for 2018 was 3.41%, a 0.94% increase from 2017.
Ukraine gdp growth rate for 2017 was 2.47%, a 0.23% increase from 2016.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/UKR/ukraine/gdp-growth-rate

Per capita income is better.


Ukraine gdp per capita for 2020 was $3,727, a 1.76% increase from 2019.
Ukraine gdp per capita for 2019 was $3,663, a 18.27% increase from 2018.
Ukraine gdp per capita for 2018 was $3,097, a 17.27% increase from 2017.
Ukraine gdp per capita for 2017 was $2,641, a 20.7% increase from 2016.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/UKR/ukraine/gdp-per-capita

And for Russia:

Russia gdp per capita for 2020 was $10,127, a 11.92% decline from 2019.
Russia gdp per capita for 2019 was $11,498, a 1.86% increase from 2018.
Russia gdp per capita for 2018 was $11,287, a 5.29% increase from 2017.
Russia gdp per capita for 2017 was $10,720, a 23.15% increase from 2016.


https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-capita

The war won't help in the short term.

Oh boy how fun.

Putin will never compromise. You can’t negotiate with terrorism. — Wayfarer

You can't negotiate with bad faith. It's why the whole thing started anyway: a party that makes clear that they are only willing to deal in bad faith makes thereby clear that they understand only one thing: lethal force.

you don't get to decide if someone invades you or not — jorndoe

Sometimes, you do, and sometimes, you do have some say in the terms of engagement, even if you're the weaker party.

The only ones one really has to fear are those who value only things money can buy and who dismiss everything else. One is in even graver danger if one is that way oneself.

You can't negotiate with bad faith. It's why the whole thing started anyway: a party that makes clear that they are only willing to deal in bad faith makes thereby clear that they understand only one thing: lethal force. — baker

I'm not following what's going on in the war. Who did bad faith?

The West and the Ukraine, from the onset. They default to viewing Russia as the enemy and Putin as a monster. They've done so for a long time.

Okay. NATO represents the west.