26th Feb 2022:
Received this message
"I have friends in Ukraine who tell me things are not a bad as CNN hype it up to be. More importantly, it is US trying to insinuate to China what will happen if they take Taiwan by force."
xxxxxxxxxxx
【Did US betray Ukraine?】
Vladimir Putin is the president of Russia, a country with enough nuclear war heads to destroy the planet in less than 24 hours. Over the past few years, Putin has patiently pleaded and negotiated with the United States and its Western allies to give Russia a break.
But instead of listening to Putin's demands, the U.S. and allies aim to make Ukraine a member of NATO. That way they can park missiles with nuclear warheads outside of Russia.
Now Putin is attacking Ukraine. Missiles are flying. Russian tanks are marching into Ukrainian territory. Then Putin tells the Ukrainian nationals to put down their weapons and just go home back. He also tells the world that whoever meddles or threatens Russia will get a quick response like they have never experienced in history.
Biden and his so-called alliances are then frozen. They had greatly underestimated Putin. They are now explaining in chorus that NATO forces are not in Ukraine. Their troop movements near Russia were for defensive purposes only. Is that true?
Ukraine is now on its own to defend itself. The U.S. and allies are turning their backs on them with their tails between their legs. Russia will deal with Ukraine without NATO help. The war will be over soon before summer begins.
So what happened?
The US and allies got greedy. They became so comfortable with invading countries and killing people on their own terms. There was no credible opposition.
They sowed the seeds of chaos from Iraq, to Iran, to Libya, to Syria, to Afghanistan and many more weak countries. They steal land, oil fields and plunder the wealth of small nations.
The U.S. and allies indulge in terrorizing countries, establishing puppet governments, and building businesses that suck host countries dry of their resources. They fund insurgencies. Provide weapons and war equipment and enjoy watching a country kill its own people.
Ukraine is just another "project" for the US and allies. They put a puppet government in place. They provide weapons to kill separatists. And just recently, they thought Ukraine was ripe for a new base to expand and terrorize the area near Russia.
Now the big bear is angry and is attacking with full force. All of its fangs and long claws are ready to strike. Putin says Russia is now ready to bear all the consequences. Bring it on!
Biden's bluff has been called. Putin is putting all his chips in. If this is the end of the world, so be it!
The ball is now in America's and NATO's court. So far, Biden's knees are still shaking. One false move and Russia could let go of its biggest warheads and head for Washington! Biden is now busy looking for a good excuse not to confront Russia militarily.
Poor Ukraine.
The Philippines and another island to her north must watch and learn from this situation. Neither the U.S. nor its Western mob are trustworthy allies. They run faster than rabbits when a real tough guy stands up and is willing to fight them to the death.
The Philippines and another one island to her north must choose wisely and not choose a US puppet as their president. Otherwise it will end up like Ukraine. Fooled, raped, milked and now abandoned.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Putin spotted in London
xxxxxxxx
Words of Wisdom
xxxxxxx
Interesting this Video is not available now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD6jX1QlB_E&t=3172s
xxxxxxxxx
Until 1990: NATO had 16 members
Russia: Don't expand further
America: Okay we will not expand (verbally, not written)
1999: Poland, Hungary and Czech republic joined NATO
Russia: But you said you won't expand! America: Where is the written document, so, jack off
2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia joined NATO
Russia: But you said you won't expand! America: Where is the written document, so jack off
2009: Albania and Croatia joined NATO
Russia: But you said you won't expand
America: Where is the written document, so jack off
2017: Montenegro and North Macedonia joined NATO
Russia: But you said you won't expand!
America: Where is the written document, so, jack off
2021: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine will join
Russia: Enough is enough, you are betraying us ever since 1990s, if we allow you, you will deploy missiles on our borders.
World: Russia is so aggressive, they are evil, they don't think about humanity, Russia is expanding. Putin is being unreasonable......
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
Boney Ms Prediction in 1978
xxxxxxxxx
BBC News
When the Soviet Union collapsed it gave the vassal territories a chance to obtain their ethnic nationhood. So there was a logic to seeking the protection of NATO.
Anybody who was part of the communist block did want to risk going back to the old days and they were too small to stand up to fascist forces. So they also sought NATO protection ( in addition to EU membership).
Opinion 2: All US presidents and their Sec of State make blunders. Trump-Pompeo, Obama-Clinton, and so on.
US foreign policy is basically stupid for the past 50 years or more. All Biden had to say was that NATO will not expand to Ukraine. That is all Russia wanted.The US military industrial complex wants war so more US weapons could be supplied.
xxxxxxxx
UIkraine was doing very well
until USA came to lend its support
xxxxxxxx
BBC NEWS
This is Scary to say the Least.
Let's hope it is a Fake News
xxxxxxxxxxxx
26th Feb 2022
| ||||
 | ||||
Ordinary Ukrainians take up arms as Russia begins battle for Kyiv | ||||
|
| ||||
 | ||||
‘Terrified’: Ukrainian-Australians fear for loved ones caught in war | ||||
|
| ||||
 | ||||
We have three options to respond to Russia’s attack. None are good | ||||
|
xxxxxx
26th Feb 2022,
Why the US won’t send troops to Ukraine
Nuclear weapons are containing the Ukraine war. They also helped cause it.
In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait in a naked war of territorial aggression. The next year, the US and an allied coalition intervened under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, repulsing the Iraqi invasion. Today, as Russia is engaged in a similar aggressive war against Ukraine, there is no similar American effort in the offing — even as Ukrainian leaders have pleaded for Western assistance.
There are many dissimilarities between the situations in 1991 and 2022, but the biggest one is this: Saddam Hussein, rather famously, did not have nuclear weapons. Vladimir Putin has approximately 6,000 of them. And that makes all the difference.
Both before the invasion and afterward, the Biden administration has consistently ruled out the deployment of US troops. “Let me say it again: Our forces are not — and will not — be engaged in the conflict with Russia in Ukraine,” the president said in a Thursday address. Despite the warnings of American involvement from commentators on the Trumpist right and “anti-imperialist” left, there are no signs of this policy changing. Nuclear weapons are the chief reason why.
The logic of mutually assured destruction that defined the Cold War still works, to some degree: Russia’s arsenal makes any direct intervention in Ukraine riskier than any rational American leader could tolerate. In a sense, then, Russia’s nuclear weapons make it less likely that the conflict will kick off World War III.
But in another sense, Russia’s nuclear arsenal also helped create the conditions where Putin’s invasion could happen in the first place.
Political scientists call this the “stability-instability paradox,” the notion that nuclear deterrence has had the paradoxical effect of making certain kinds of conventional warfare more likely. Russia can be relatively confident that the United States and its allies won’t come to Ukraine’s defense directly, because such a clash carries the threat of nuclear war. This could make Putin more confident that his invasion could succeed.
Putin himself has suggested as much. In his speech declaring war on Wednesday night, he warned that “anyone who would consider interfering from the outside” will “face consequences greater than any you have faced in history” — a thinly veiled threat to nuke the United States or its NATO allies if they dare intervene.
“This is about the clearest evidence I have ever seen for the stability-instability paradox,” Caitlin Talmadge, a professor at Georgetown University who studies nuclear weapons, writes of Putin’s speech. “Putin’s behavior suggests that revisionist actors [can] use their strategic nuclear forces as a shield behind which they can pursue conventional aggression, knowing their nuclear threats may deter outside intervention.”
The nuclear balance between the United States and Russia, one of the Cold War’s defining features, is coming back to the forefront of international politics. We can only hope that things don’t get scarier from here.
How nuclear weapons make US involvement in Ukraine unthinkable
Nuclear weapons are the only weapons humanity has yet devised that, deployed at scale, could swiftly wipe out our entire species. The risks of conflict between two nuclear-armed powers are so great that virtually any rational leader should, in theory, seek to avoid one.
This is especially true of the United States and Russia, who together control an estimated 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads. The issue is not merely the size of their arsenals but also their structure — both countries have robust “second strike” capabilities, meaning each can sustain a devastating nuclear first strike from the other side and still retaliate. The US and Russia maintain second strike capabilities in part through the so-called “nuclear triad”: bombers armed with nuclear bombs, submarines equipped with nuclear missiles, and land-based missile launchers.
The result is that neither the US nor Russia can hope to “win” a nuclear war. Even if one nation struck first, decimating major military bases and population centers, the other would still be able to launch a devastating nuclear counterattack on their enemy’s homeland from (for example) submarines out to sea. The only way to win is not to play.
This appears to be the reason the Biden administration has been so adamant on avoiding any kind of involvement in Ukraine; the risks of any direct intervention are far too high.
Conventional warfare between nuclear powers does not necessarily escalate to nuclear conflict: see the 1999 Kargill conflict between India and Pakistan, the 2018 battle between US special forces and Russian mercenaries in Syria, or the recent border clashes between India and China. But the risk of such a conflict escalating to nuclear use is always there, especially if one side believes that vital national interests or its very survival is at stake.
For Putin, the Ukraine war seems to fit the bill. A significant US or NATO intervention in the conflict would, by sheer fact of geography, pose a threat to the territorial integrity of the Russian homeland. Were it to turn the tide of the war in Ukraine’s favor, Russia could very conceivably use its nuclear arsenal against its NATO enemies.
“Their nuclear strategy envisions possible first use if they are losing a conventional conflict or facing an existential threat,” Nick Miller, an expert on nuclear weapons at Dartmouth University, explains.
We have no guarantee that deploying US troops to Ukraine would, in fact, lead to nuclear warfare. But the risks would be high, very likely exceeding the most dangerous moments of the Cold War, like the Cuban missile crisis. There are scenarios where you could imagine an American leader launching a conflict with a nuclear power — if it was necessary to protect the US homeland, for example — but defending Ukraine, which isn’t even a formal US ally, simply isn’t one of them.
How nuclear weapons helped make the Ukraine war possible — and could make it much worse
Some leading scholars look at the logic of deterrence and conclude that nuclear weapons are actually a good thing for the world. This “nuclear revolution” theory, most commonly associated with the late political scientist Kenneth Waltz, holds that the spread of nuclear weapons will spread peace by expanding deterrence. The more countries can make aggression unthinkably risky, the less likely war will become.
The evidence for this theory is spotty. While nuclear deterrence does seem to have played a role in preventing the Cold War from turning hot, examining other cases — including smaller nuclear armed states like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea — leads to a much more complicated picture.
The stability-instability paradox is one of these complications. In its most classic form, the paradox argues that two countries with nuclear weapons can be more likely to engage in small-scale conflict. Because each side knows that the other doesn’t want to risk a wider war given nuclear risks, they can feel more confident engaging in smaller provocations and assaults. What looks like nuclear stability actually breeds conventional instability.
Ukraine is not a nuclear state, but the NATO alliance has three of them (the US, Britain, and France). Because NATO states don’t want a wider war with Russia, one that carries a risk of a nuclear exchange, they’re less likely to intervene in a conflict they might otherwise join. Putin knows this; his public threat to use nukes against any intervening country suggests he’s counting on it.
So what we’re seeing is a kind of twist on the classic paradox: Putin is relying on nuclear fear to allow him to get away with invading a country (Ukraine) that a nuclear-armed third party (NATO) might otherwise want to defend.
This dynamic is familiar from the Cold War; it’s in part why the Soviets could send troops to Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to suppress popular anti-communist uprisings without real fear of Western intervention.
To be clear, the stability-instability paradox is not an ironclad law of international relations; scholars disagree about exactly how frequently it actually causes conflict. But neither is nuclear deterrence: There are several near-miss examples where a nuclear exchange was just barely avoided.
In 1983, for example, Soviet Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov was alerted by an early warning system that a US nuclear strike was likely incoming. Had Petrov informed his superiors of that message, it’s very likely they would have launched missiles in response. Yet Petrov and his staff correctly concluded this was a false alarm and chose to say nothing — potentially saving hundreds of millions, if not billions, of lives.
Nuclear deterrence depends on both sides having good information and making rational decisions. But in a conflict like the one we’re seeing in Ukraine, taking place near the borders of NATO members, the risks of accidents, misperceptions, and miscalculations inches incrementally higher. For example, says Miller, “you can imagine a Russian jet straying into NATO airspace accidentally” and sparking a wider conflict.
Without a NATO presence inside Ukraine, the risks of such a disaster remain extremely low; Miller cautions that “both sides have a strong incentive to avoid direct conflict and avoid minor incidents escalating.”
But the fact that we’re even talking about it illustrates how nuclear weapons, by their very nature, make the world a riskier place. While they likely are playing a major role in keeping the US out of the Ukraine conflict directly, they helped create the conditions where Russia could launch the war in the first place — and, in the very worst case, could escalate to complete disaster.
Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?
Millions turn to Vox to understand what’s happening in the news. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all
xxxxxxx
PUTIN's STORY
xxxxxxx
Scomo Gets Bagged
xxxxxxx
Time for a Laugh
xxxxxxx
Ukrainian President Speaks
On a Lighter Vein
UK RAISES ALERT LEVEL
By John Cleese – British writer, actor and tall person.
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent Russian threats and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.” The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. The Russians have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s Get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”
The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose.”
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be alright, Mate.” Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is cancelled.” So far, no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.
xxxxxxxxxxx
26th July
Palki Sharma - WION
