The inability to Russia to create a modern vibrant economy — ssu

The inability for Russia to succeed has always been a source of joy for the United States and the most glorious moment was the destruction of the USSR. The ability for China to succeed, however is a problem that has only one solution: when you are losing the race, push your challenger off the road, like it is done in Formula 1 sometimes, allegedly.

"The greatest victory is that which requires no battle." — boethius

That does not make it right. Meddling with elections and installing your glove puppet as President may not be classified as a battle, but the morality of the idea is questionable. Are lives lost the only measure or is the freedoms lost also to be counted in the list of casualties?

War brings evil intentions to light. That is what it is for.

but if the handheld systems can't win the conventional war, what's their real purpose? — boethius

This is very worrying. Notice how specific weapons have been provided, as if to see how they work, without changing anything? Anti-tank weapons. Hand - held SAMs. As I mentioned Ukraine asked for some weapons they never got.

First thing, Zelenskyy's options

1. Fight the Russians back
2. Stop the Russian advance and offer a ceasefire
3. Fight to the end.
4. Accept a ceasefire on mostly Russian terms

Putin aims to deny him options 1 and 2. 3 is an option that needs no negotiation. 4. May just save the day, and Ukraine can re-build.

So, going by Reuters, the deal the Kremlin offers is something like ...

Russia halts military operations in Ukraine
Ukraine cease military action against Russians in Ukraine
Ukraine change its constitution to enshrine neutrality
Ukraine acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory
— jorndoe

How about

Russia halts military operations in Ukraine
Ukraine cease military action against Russians in Ukraine
Ukraine change its constitution to enshrine neutrality
Ukraine acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory

Ukraine recognize the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states
Ukraine agrees to UN Peacekeepers in the east (proposed before, turned down by Russia)

These are good:

Russia recognizes Ukraine as an independent state
Russia rebuilds (or pays for rebuilding) what they ruined in Ukraine
Russia returns (or pays for) what they took from Ukrainians

However they are extremely dangerous to the forces that want to distabilise the region and put pressure on Russia. An Ukraine- Russia alliance will be a very strong bolster against any other country or bloc. Not acceptable.

Joining NATO to be taken as a separate discussion and agreement.

..

Why not "Stop, Ukraine". "Stop, Putin". "You will have to raze out city to the ground" - Zelenskyy (Sky News) . I this suicidal or not? I don't see this as an exit strategy.

As for Putin, I do not see an exit strategy, let's see how smart he really is to get out of this one.

I quote below an obviously a pro-NATO/US website (not necessarily pro-Ukraine.) Propagandists are smart, but they don't have to be smart in a world where people can't tell the difference between RT and FOX news. Intentions will usually show. Hope you read between the lines.

The U.S. has begun quietly preparing for a Ukrainian government in exile although it’s unlikely that that would be led Zelensky, who seems intent on staying in Kiev. Presumably his would-be successor has already left the capital for the relative safety of Lviv in the west or even Poland, ready to lead Ukraine from a distance if Zelensky is assassinated. — Hot Air

Ukrainian government in exile - is it true? Here is what CNN says:

(CNN)US and European officials have been discussing how the West would support a government in exile helmed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky should he have to flee Kyiv, Western officials told CNN.

The discussions have ranged from supporting Zelensky and top Ukrainian officials in a potential move to Lviv in western Ukraine, to the possibility that Zelensky and his aides are forced to flee Ukraine altogether and establish a new government in Poland, the officials said — CNN

.

US and Europe weigh plans for Ukrainian government in exile

By Natasha Bertrand and Kylie Atwood, CNN

Updated 0637 GMT (1437 HKT) March 7, 2022 — CNN

I came across this video, thought I would share it. I never worried about supremacists but this is a little worrying. I suppose it is an internal thing for Ukraine to handle.

More important is, why did TIME do such a video, about a year ago? What was its purpose? To draw Putin's attention? To expose the West to these 'Malitia' so they would understand the concept? To damage Ukraine's reputation? These are all questions worth asking. Why did it show up in my suggested videos list?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy910FG46C4

"It's like the Great Germany of before" Robin

Chomsky has condemned this Russian war clearly and unequivocally. — Manuel

He is a captive critic.

But of course we could talk about one if not the most obscenely rich and powerful, Vladimir Putin. — ssu

I thought capitalists want people to be rich (and powerful).

"Greatest intellectual", that's a stretch. "A while now"? Like what, sixty years? That's a pretty good legacy. Imagine if he was born in Russia, criticizing the policies of his him country like that. He probably wouldn't have lasted for sixty days. It's a real nice life being a great proponent of freedom of speech, when you live in a country which allows it. — Metaphysician Undercover

You can see how ineffective his criticism is, in Russia, however, such an intellectual may be able to influence the way things go, hence the crackdowns, book banning and so on. It may be just paranoia or just being careful.

On the other hand, not only are RT and Sputnik banned in the West (because they are effective)?
Because they 'spread lies'. Who believes these lies? Only Putin supporters, right? Might as well let them make fools of themselves by lying.

What exactly is Europe and America afraid of in these 'news' channels. The only thing that makes sense is that these channels do tell the truth sometimes, draw attention to verifiable details and that is most inconvenient.

The talk about 'fighting to the last soldier' reminds me of the words of a President of another country, years ago, when India was, according to some sources, planning to Invade Sri Lanka.

The signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord, so soon after J.R. Jayawardene's declaration that he would fight the Indians to the last bullet, led to unrest in the south.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War#Indian_intervention_(1987–1990)

In due course, both the Indian "Peace Keeping Forces" and the terrorist army that they were supporting were defeated, the Indians left, and the terrorists were defeated many years later. Ironically the prolonging of the conflict was fuelled by external sources, India and certain other countries providing the facility for import of armaments and for funding.

I am not asking Ukraine to give up, just to agree to a halt in the fighting, and, as a sovereign country, they have to make a decision what they are going to do next: insurgency, subservience, whatever.

Zelensksyy's words seem to indicate that he is playing some sort of a role, and while others are fighting to the last man, he is in his safe house, and there may be the option of 'extracting' him at the last moment if needed, by NATO.

Some of the other news channels give a different, if not accurate, perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-uRaAbjUM

All the above just how absolute disaster this plan was and how it's not all so evident that one or the other side will prevail. — ssu

As long as we are in a military strategy discussion, why didn't Russia simply do this with cruise missiles to destroy military targets?

Why not simply threaten to invade?

Is arming rebels a good strategy and does it violate the UN Charter?

Why not simply threaten to use Nukes in the first place?

Saving lives...

When have you seen footage of American troops pillaging a supermarket to get food? When have you heard about British troops going from door to door asking for food from the people because their army is totally incapable of giving them rations — ssu

Russian soldiers are getting killed as well. Maybe we would like to see footage of that. I do not think pillaging supermarkets is going to lose them the war. Actually it might help with the logistics and offset some of the costs of sanctions.

If Nato is a threat to Russia because Nato would attack or do whatever they like, then the nations within Nato could just break protocol anyway at any time and attack. — Christoffer

This documentary seems to say that NATO was a threat to Russia. DW - Germany Media. That video has some other material worth quoting, but later.

4:08
this new Cold War is of course directed against the winners of the previous one against the US and its armed extension
4:16
in Europe NATO [Music]
4:26
since the collapse of the USSR in 1991 the transatlantic alliance has
4:32
encroached on Moscow sphere of influence Poland Romania and the Baltic States
4:37
which were occupied by Soviet forces sought NATO's protection NATO carried

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8OqfMYlqJg

Zelenskyy is in a fix, maybe he has a gun to his head, as they say. Maybe he has two guns to his head.

As a human being how will he react? That is why he is fighting on he is fighting for his life. If Russia takes over then it would make strategic sense, and be good propaganda to ... well those more experienced in this sick game of international politics know what I am getting at.

He must be thinking: how did I get into this mess?

Governments come and go. — boethius

Not the government of the United States. I get the impression that Obama, Biden are working for someone else. Trump did not follow orders so I guess he was fired.

I get the impression, not information or propaganda. That is why it is so difficult to deal with the United States, we are not dealing with people or a people but maybe Oligarchs? Maybe.

Who has predominant power in the United States? The short answer, from 1776 to the present, is: Those who have the money -- or more specifically, who own income-producing land and businesses -- have the power. George Washington was one of the biggest landowners of his day; presidents in the late 19th century were close to the railroad interests; for the Bush family, it was oil and other natural resources, agribusiness, and finance. In this day and age, this means that banks, corporations, agribusinesses, and big real estate developers, working separately on most policy issues, but in combination on important general issues -- such as taxes, opposition to labor unions, and trade agreements with other countries -- set the rules within which policy battles are waged.

https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/class_domination.html

First, wealth can be seen as a "resource" that is very useful in exercising power. That's obvious when we think of donations to political parties, payments to lobbyists, and grants to experts who are employed to think up new policies beneficial to the wealthy. Wealth also can be useful in shaping the general social environment to the benefit of the wealthy, whether through hiring public relations firms or donating money for universities, museums, music halls, and art galleries.

https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/wealth.html

Seeing the invasion maps make me feel a little queasy. How many have been killed... and the injuries. I guess Russia did not have the economic clout to push their interests peacefully like China.

This is why Putin won't retreat because he knows that after such a retreat he would lose Ukraine to Nato, and after that, it would be impossible to invade again. Instead of making up some geopolitical nonsense speculation, look at what actually exists as information, like the leaked propaganda document aimed for after the invasion was supposed to be over. — Christoffer

Putin won't retreat unless he has to, because it does not make sense to give up half way. Not because of NATO - Ukraine may still not get NATO membership - after the invasion and refusal of NATO to stop it? That is a really a joke.

Information - in the form of a leaked document? How is that trustworthy? Does it not depend if the leak was intentional? How do we know if the document is not a fake? I do not think you know how disinformation and counter-intelligence works.

I also completely agree that as soon as the war ends (or even sooner), as Isaac put it, the idea Ukraine has essentially been "beautified" and can face no criticism of anything and any kind whatsoever — boethius

Maybe this was the plan to make a martyr of out Ukraine. If getting people killed is OK with you, then I guess the sky is the limit.

Yet the classic imperialism that Putin is so dearly advocating will only end if the country experiences and absolute catastrophy. This hopefully might happen. — ssu

I think it is time to re-consider this 'imperialist' categorization of Putin. Here are the former Russian states: do you think Putin is going to invade them all? There are 14. Can they ever afford to do that? Look what happened with one Crimea and Ukraine. I think any talk of any imperialism is the echo of US propaganda, they are very familiar with imperialism.

Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic→Armenia Armenia
Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic→Azerbaijan Azerbaijan
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic→Belarus Belarus
Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic→Estonia Estonia
Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic→Georgia (country) Georgia
Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic→Kazakhstan Kazakhstan
Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic→Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan
Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic→Latvia Latvia
Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic→Lithuania Lithuania
Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic→Moldova Moldova

Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic→Tajikistan Tajikistan
Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic→Turkmenistan Turkmenistan
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic→Ukraine Ukraine
Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic→Uzbekistan Uzbekistan

Only Trump? I can point out truths and lies that all Presidents have told. If you can't tell the truth from the lies it is a problem, Trumps or Obama's lies are their problem not for people who can tell the difference or will not.

What is the way out? Zelensky has to be in a position where he can be excused for agreeing to a ceasefire: maybe half the country destroyed and he is surrounded. Neither can Putin get out of this easily: he has to have a way to call a victory. Each leader has to retain support from his country at the end of this. Exit strategy I think it is called, both have to have one.

So when Russia forms a narrative around labs in Ukraine. And the west leaks intel once again that undermines that intel, i.e Russia might use chemical weapons. That will inform a plausible event chain based on previous events. It does not mean it will happen, it means it is likely it will happen according to these previous interplays. Nothing of this validates the current "leaked intel" as true, but the creating a likely scenario based on previous events. — Christoffer

Let me see if I understand you here.

Russia forms a narrative around labs. OK.

The West leaks intel ... no this is not leaked intel, this is an assumption or a prediction that Russia might use chemical weapons. We have no idea if that is leaked intel or simply a statement designed for a purpose. Is that correct?

What plausible even chain?

You are saying there is a pattern here? OK so we see a pattern, and you think it is likely.

Making claims of chemical attacks seems to be a long standing ploy that the US uses against its adversaries, for example Syria. I have no way of knowing if it is true or false, so based on the pattern of falsifications that accompany war, I have to assume it is probably false.

Russia is now trying to smoke screen a possible attack with chemical weapons
— Christoffer — Isaac

Don't you think that is one of the possible explanations but not the only one? Probabilities aside.

Any question can be evaluated as to whether it is a sensible question or not. Going even further, I can tell if I would have wanted or if I wanted to ask that question. That means I think it is a valid question to ask. When I get the answers I will make up my mind about the answer.

Lets see the transcript and I did watch the video of the testimony:

3:51
>> DOES UKRAINE HAVE CHEMICAL OR
3:54
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS?
3:56
>> UKRAINE HAS BIOLOGICAL
4:01
RESEARCH FACILITIES WHICH IN
4:04
FACT WE ARE NOW QUITE CONCERNED
4:06
RUSSIAN TROOPS, RUSSIAN FORCES
4:09
MAY BE SEEKING TO GAIN CONTROL
4:12
OF.
4:13
WE ARE WORKING WITH THE
4:15
UKRAINIANS ON HOW THEY CAN
4:17
PREVENT ANY OF THOSE RESEARCH
4:19
MATERIALS FROM FALLING INTO THE

Ok. Why not answer "No, Mr. Chairman, as you know the United States does not fund Chemical or Bio Weapons research in other countries. " Could it be that lying to congress is a crime? Is that a possibility after all? Possibility.

Could we establish whose version we trust? Does anyone here trust the US Governments official pronouncements or are these to be met with skepticism?

Does it occur that saying bad things about the enemy - what they have done, what they will do, what their intentions are, are all propaganda and some of it may be actually fabricated?

How can an opinion be fact? If there is a attack using bioweapons it will be Putin? 100%? With statements like that it only makes sense for the Ukrainians to stage one - that is simply being strategic.

You see, to do annexations, you have to be smart. You have understand what the backlashes are, you don't get into a situation where the response of the outside World is like this. Good examples are Israel of for example Morocco with the Spanish Sahara.

I think that this is the beginning of the end for Putin. — ssu

It does not make sense that someone who has led the Russia for so many years is stupid. If you and I know the above facts, doesn't he know? He may be carrying out a last-ditch attempt to 'save Russia'. By the way, DW has an excellent video of Putin, this time supported by depressing facts. Also see the chief opposition leader also seems to support getting Ukraine into the fold as well. It is much deeper than we think. Seems to be largely supported by Russia, which means Putins future may depend on trying to take Ukraine.



Tucker asks some excellent questions. You may dispute facts, but you cannot dispute that a question has been asked, and then it is a simple matter to figure out if it is a good question or not. As I said I do not trust anything without some verification - I watch news channels to get the facts about what each faction is saying. Their statements are valuable evidence, and revealing.

How many people in several categories have been killed so far? How many people have been injured, and how badly? There are always good reasons to inflate or deflate totals, and where an accurate count is desired all round, it may just be impossible to obtain. — Bitter Crank

Yes indeed, but do you note the way casualties are bandied about like a set of brownie points for each side? These are people too. The more Ukranian civilians killed the better for the 'cause'.

Can we stick with what we know for sure? What do we know for sure?

Here's a good primer on Putin, made by PBS Frontline. Tells well how we are where we are now and just how and why Putin got to power. Worth seeing. — ssu

I could not get past the first few minutes. What a disgusting piece of anti-Putin propaganda. From the classist "unemployed spy" to the accusations of corruption from the first five minutes, interviewing a man who 'tried to arrest Putin" to obtain reliable testimony on corruption charges.

Nice try at war propagada: it is effective in that it does not convince anyone who is either too clever or too dumb or too biased, but gives a cudgel to those who want to force the anti-Putin narrative to its extremes.

PBS (Public BS?) has lost my respect completely. This is the kind of BS that the far right channels put out to defame certain democrats. Favorite line "The Russians are not Democtrats" Autocratic? I am not sure the UN Charter prescribes or proscribes political systems.

Why don't you think RT or Sputnik don't have a documentary on how 'x' rose to power in the United States? It will be instantly attacked as a piece of anti-American shill. Unfortunately some people still trust some news channels maybe they want to believe.

No offence to 'ssu'.

I wish I could access different channels, my country offers CNN, FOX and BBC.
— Manuel

All three of those are known for bias (Fox is worthless). — frank

Let's look at some evidence. Headlines today:

Russian forces crawl closer to 'fortress' Kyiv
Russian troops advance three miles towards Ukraine's capital, whose mayor says it is well defended.

EUROPE
Russian forces crawl closer to 'fortress' Kyiv -BBC

LIVE UPDATES: Russia makes new demand over what they claim America is secretly doing in Ukraine
-FOX News


40-mile-long Russian convoy largely dispersed -CNN

Looks like we are neck deep in a propaganda war. First of all, it is not "all lies" (incidentally similar to the spelling of "ALLIES". ) There is truth mixed in, at least what we accept as truth. There are statements that are encouraging to each side and demoralizing to each side. For someone involved in the war, what the news channels choose to put on their headlines has an effect, and has a different effect on the combatants since the headlines are different. This is more than propaganda. This is psychological warfare.

The reason I do not go to those sites is that I do not want unverified and unverifiable statements to affect my view of the situation, although they do. The news channels can lie all they want and issue corrections later - the damage is done.

So are these news items true?

BBC - maybe, the Russians may be advancing. Who knows?

FOX - this is verifiable. Has Russia made new demands? Follow the link.

CNN - Maybe the Russians have fled. Maybe they cleared their traffic jam. Maybe they are advancing on Kiev.

Why I watch RT and Sputnik is simply because I know whose side they are on, their intention is to promote a certain point of view, propaganda, no-one believes they are unbiased. CNN and other channels can build up trust and use that to mislead, suddenly and effectively.

RT :403 - Forbidden . That’s an error.

Client does not have access rights to the content so server is rejecting to give proper response. That’s all we know.

Sputnik: LIVE UPDATES: Russia Ready to Resist Sanctions, It Will Be Difficult But There Is No Panic - MFA

So sanctions are hurting you, Boris, well well, your propaganda is now trying to calm the Russian people. Looks like they are ... working....

(Useful information from Sputnik)

And this : (no comment)

Video: Speaking in Poland, Harris Needs to Check Notes to Know Where She's Standing

(!)

Yes, there's some silver linings here or there, but overall this war is a disaster for all, first of course for Ukraine and Russia, and second for the rest of us. The global economy is taking a hit, during a pandemic... If it leads to less globalisation, shorter local value chains, and less European dependency on petro-states, that'll I suppose be positive, further down the road. In the meantime, food prices are sky-rocketing. — Olivier5

This is the real tragedy. I am do not live in Europe, I live in Asia, and my perspective is like one who comes across two men trying to kill each other. I would say to them: do not do that. Your existence is important. I am not taking sides. Stopping the fight would be a good thing. I am against against war. I think a nation must be able to defend itself against enemies within and without. That's in the CIA handbook I think.

This also means I do not support violent overthrow of governments for any reason. Lets be consistent here. Should George W. Bush be violently overthrown because of what he did in Iraq? He was given a second term.

There simply is no way around this: Putin made huge gambles, made huge victories (2014 annexation of Crimea), or at least he could think so if getting territory with poor economy is that, and basically had punched way over his weight class. And now he lost it in the gamble. Made a catastrophic error on starting this war. — ssu

I am not counting the war lost until it is over of some sort of ceasefire is in place. I am not going to ride the roller coaster of Russian losses and Ukranian seiges. I am worried for Ukraine when I see the map, and it looks like an encirclement of the east.

If Russia achieves it's objectives (which we don't even know at this point ... other than they are obviously in Ukraine), Putin, generals, Kremlin and even most ordinary Russians may view the war as a hard fought battle, but worth it. — boethius

Such an irony that some human beings consider the loss of other human beings off the face of the earth worth something.

There is the interview with Charlie Rose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKT-XmvIwKM

This is my opinion.
Putin seems to be a realist, an immensely practical man and a very forthright in this speech: typically European in outlook. Did he start a war and get people killed? No leader of any country can avoid that taking on that responsibility, to use military force, they cannot be and should not be put in that position. There are no pacifist presidents or prime ministers. Not among the powerful nations which rely on force.

I can't help feel that both Ukraine and Putin have been provoked, manipulated by the 'cunning' and perhaps unprincipled other parties.

In time, Russia can reinforce units around Kyiv, bring in additional assets, bring in more competent leadership, etc. This is why I said Ukraine likely feels decently about their odds "in the medium term." This is not in contradiction with the military situation being "dire" in the long term. Their hope is that political and economic factors will intervene within that time frame to force a settlement. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's a hopeful analysis. Dirty business this war. Any war for that matter.

I hope somebody wins, quickly. No one seems to agree with me that Ukraine will come out of this much stronger, because world support is on its side, world money, world rebuilding of armed forces, and security assurances from Russia.





Meanwhile there is the interview with Charlie Rose.

"Putin must be punished" is indeed just about the most stupid, sociopath approach to international politics I can imagine. But this is to be expected from those who treat the latter as a video game. — StreetlightX

It is a selling point for whatever. Rallying public opinion with private opinion is key.

Two things really trouble me here:

1) Seeing NATO countries standing by and watching by while Ukraine is invaded, having the most advanced weapons in the world and not giving them to the Ukrainians. Even I could think of ways to prevent invasion. In any case why not give Ukraine the arms they wanted? I simply did not know what weapons were being provided to Ukraine did you see the the list? They are not allowed to get or to buy what they think they need. Regardless on what side you are on this, being let down by friends is a tragedy. Makes you wonder if NATO actually will rush to defend a member.

Maybe Putin is trying to break Ukraines' trust in NATO

2) The prospect of some sort of deal between Russia and Ukraine, something that will undercut the power of Western European countries. With their combined resources, they could be a very powerful trading and military block. This means more conflict.

My sense is that the Ukraininans want to punish the Russian army as hard as they can, so that they will never even dream of attacking Ukraine again. — Olivier5

I favour neither side, however I support any countries right to defend itself, that said, it has the right and the duty to obtain the weapons and training it needs to do that. Can't you see they withheld that from them? Is it any wonder Ledensy is so unhappy.

Zelenskyy says Europe and US 'did nothing'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0I-AqUEGaU

This is betray, you can expect your enemies to do you harm but not your friends. What is going on here?

And you've dodged the question - does Ukraine have a choice? — Isaac

What choice does Ukraine have, Isaac? Roll over and give more territory to Russia?
— ssu

Yes, that is correct. That's the choice they have. Lose more of their young men, armed forces, women and children, or cede territory to the Russians. — Isaac

Whatever happened to the long term? If Ukraine agrees to keeping the present government, staying out of NATO "forever" (who would have thought Putin would request to join NATO?) and peacekeepers to babysit the Neo-Nazis, Ukraine will be a hugely advantageous position: supported by the world, and with Russia under crippling sanctions, rocked by protests. Who could ask for more. Maybe they will

Something else is going on here, things we cannot see. Maybe it is all about the money. I saw it somewhere a human life was quantified in dollars.

Objectively, this is a crimminal circus. Defensive weapons? Helmets, ammunition, rifles... I hope the NATO has better stuff than this at home.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/28/weapons-from-the-west-vital-if-ukraine-is-to-halt-russian-advance

Germany in particular was criticised this month ahead of the invasion for only stumping up some 5,000 helmets to send to Ukraine, a gesture the mayor of Kyiv, former world boxing champion Vitali Klitschko, said had left him "speechless".

"What will they send us next? Pillows?" he asked the Bild daily.

The Czech Republic meanwhile is delivering 30,000 pistols

The UNITED STATES has provided over $2.5 billion in military aid since 2014, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, coastal patrol boats, Humvees, sniper rifles, reconnaissance drones, radar systems, night vision and radio equipment. A bipartisan group of U.S. senators last week promised further supplies that could include Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, small arms and boats.

BRITAIN last week supplied a reported 2,000 short-range anti-tank missiles and sent British specialists to deliver training. It has also provided Saxon armoured vehicles.

BALTIC STATES Estonia is sending Javelin anti-armour missiles and Latvia and Lithuania are providing Stinger missiles.

TURKEY has sold Ukraine several batches of Bayraktar TB2 drones that it deployed against Russian-backed separatists in the eastern Donbass region, infuriating Moscow.

The CZECH REPUBLIC said last week it plans to donate a shipment of 152mm artillery ammunition.

GERMANY is ruling out arms deliveries to Ukraine but is co-financing a $6 million field hospital and providing the necessary training.

UKRAINE'S WISHLIST of items it wants to buy or obtain includes:

- Helicopters, communications systems and light armoured vehicles from the United States

- NASAMS surface-to-air missile system from Norway

- Self-propelled DANA artillery system from Czech Republic, and shells for Soviet-made artillery with calibers of 120 mm and above

- Medium and short range air defence systems

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-gets-weapons-west-says-it-needs-more-2022-01-25/

I am getting the picture now. It's all a military exercise by NATO, using a fictional country called Ukraine.

Constantly reminding ourselves of the power of the rich seems to be a self-defeating exercise, gloating over us. I propose Twitter remove the accounts of Billionaires.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/23/politics/ukraine-us-second-weapons-shipment/index.html

"If a single additional Russian force goes into Ukraine in an aggressive way, as I said, that would trigger a swift, a severe and a united response from us and from Europe," Blinken told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union."

"When it comes to sanctions, the purpose of those sanctions is to deter Russian aggression," he said. "So if they're triggered now, you lose the deterrent effect.

We can see how that worked.

It is easier to believe that brute force prevails over intelligence, this looks like what has happened here. We only have one superpower now, remember 'unipolar'. Putin is clever, NATO is brutish.

The Chomsky article again is a good fame of reference:

The great powers constantly violate international law, as do smaller ones when they can get away with it... — Chomsky

OK let's accept this as true. From experience.

Under international law, it is the responsibility of the UN Security Council to keep the peace and, if deemed necessary, to authorize force. — Chomsky

We can see how that works out, with the the alleged perpetrators having veto power over UNSC decisions on their actions. It's like having the murder suspect in the jury. It will not work. The issue can be referred to the GA but then again this is done selectively.

A more adequate framework of international order may be useful for educational and organizing purposes — as indeed international law is. But it is not enough to protect the victims. That can only be achieved by compelling the powerful to cease their crimes — or in the longer run, undermining their power altogether. — Chomsky

The powerful. Who are these powerful? The American War Enterprise (AWE as I call it). Who runs the world, Professor Chomsky? :

When we ask “Who rules the world?” we commonly adopt the standard convention that the actors in world affairs are states, primarily the great powers, and we consider their decisions and the relations among them. That is not wrong. But we would do well to keep in mind that this level of abstraction can also be highly misleading.

States of course have complex internal structures, and the choices and decisions of the political leadership are heavily influenced by internal concentrations of power, while the general population is often marginalized. That is true even for the more democratic societies, and obviously for others. We cannot gain a realistic understanding of who rules the world while ignoring the “masters of mankind,” as Adam Smith called them: in his day, the merchants and manufacturers of England; in ours, multinational conglomerates, huge financial institutions, retail empires and the like. Still following Smith, it is also wise to attend to the “vile maxim” to which the “masters of mankind” are dedicated: “All for ourselves and nothing for other people” — a doctrine known otherwise as bitter and incessant class war, often one-sided, much to the detriment of the people of the home country and the world. — Chomsky

The questions arise constantly in one or another form. Up to virtually the day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the crime very possibly could have been averted by pursuing options that were well understood: Austrian-style neutrality for Ukraine, some version of Minsk II federalism reflecting the actual commitments of Ukrainians on the ground. — Chomsky

I do not think a powerful United States of Europe would be welcome, as Chomsky says:

Such concerns trace back to earlier Cold War fears that Europe might become a “third force” independent of both the great and minor superpowers and moving toward closer links to the latter (as can be seen in Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik and other initiatives).

The Western response to Russia’s collapse was triumphalist. It was hailed as signaling “the end of history,” the final victory of Western capitalist democracy, almost as if Russia were being instructed to revert to its pre-World War I status as a virtual economic colony of the West. — Chomsky - Who Rules the World?

There were other methods. Masses of weapons were provided to Ukraine, now it seems mainly anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, more useful as real world testing programs for the manufacturers than as a defense. There was talk of short range missiles but this would 'upset Russia' and more likely prevent the invasion, which seems to be a Saddam - Hussein type trap like the invasion of Kuwait.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/21/weapons-ukraine-russia-invasion-military/

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers had been reporting sharply increased violence in the Donbas region, which many — not just Russia — charge was largely at Ukrainian initiative. Putin could have sought to establish that charge, if it is correct, and to bring it to international attention. That would have strengthened his position. — Chomsky

Peacekeepers - UN peacekeepers - the proposal was rejected on both sides one after another. This would have been a huge step.

The gift is so welcome that some sober and well-informed analysts have speculated that it was Washington’s goal all along....

“Austrian-style neutrality for Ukraine, some version of Minsk II federalism reflecting the actual commitments of Ukrainians on the ground.” ....

China also knows that the Global South has little taste for “canceling Mother Russia” but would prefer to maintain relations.... — Chomsky

China is correct I think.

The documentary record reveals that Russia invaded Afghanistan very reluctantly, several months after President Carter authorized the CIA to “provide … support to the Afghan insurgents” who were opposing a Russian-backed government — with the strong support if not initiative of National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, as he later proudly declared — Chomsky

So the U.S. was responsible for that crime as well.

The U.S. provided strong support for the Mujahideen who were resisting the Russian invasion, not in order to help liberate Afghanistan but rather to “kill Soviet Soldiers,” as explained by the CIA station chief in Islamabad who was running the operation. — Chomsky

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński, or Zbig, was a Polish-American diplomat and political scientist. He served as a counselor to President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1966 to 1968 and was President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981.

Critics described him as hawkish or "foreign policy hardliner" on some issues such as Poland-Russia relations. — Wikipedia

No kidding.

It looks like a well - laid trap. Let's hope both Ukraine and Russia manage to get out of it somehow.
As longs as we have this mad scramble for power and resources we will have these conflicts while the rest of the world stands in muted shock and awe. There is no recourse but to let the cruel hand of fate meter out justice as all empires scattered and fall in less than a thousand years.