Europe at War

[Mandryka]

     I think the point is that far right extremists are present in European democratic countries, and they often appear in news accounts. I don't see this is any more significant in Ukraine than in Germany Sweden, France or the UK. Ukrainians seem to have taken to democratic government quite well.

One thing that is a bit disturbing is Azov -- I mean I know it's small and it probably gets more media coverage than it should, but you know, it's a bit like having a KKK division in the US army. This snopes article may be trustable on the subject

https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/03/02/what-is-ukraines-azov-battalion/

[Mandryka]

I see many in The Diner ready to victimize the truth on their own account....

I think it has been increasingly difficult to divine the truth about what happens in wartime since at least the first Gulf War, and the advent of "embedded" reporters, dependent on the military and security services for access. Independent journalists that speak truth to power are a dying breed. So, it is quite plausible, in my opinion, that Ukrainian forces might act wickedly, and it not be reported.


I share the videos here without comment as to their accuracy and impartiality, but merely to highlight that discussion of extreme right wing political currents in Ukraine is not the sole preserve of Putin apologists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY&t=14s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEKQsnRGv7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE6b4ao8gAQ&t=2s

[Florestan]

and a list of active, ultra-nationalist parties in Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_nationalist_parties_in_Europe

As usual, Wikipedia should be taken cum grano salis. The entry for Romania is highly inaccurate: of the 4 parties listed as active, one has drifted into irrelevance since 2008, one has always been irrelevant (both of them might qualify as active only for their militant members, if they still have any left which is doubtful) and I have never heard of the third one.

[MusicTurner]

A interesting thread about the current sanctions effect on Russian economy.

He may be exaggerating the negative consequences, but there are some staggering stats there. It is implied, that if Russia should decide to turn to only Asia in the future policies, away from the West, they would need a lot of time to actually do so. So the Russian leadership now has a huge pressure of oncoming economic problems, if deciding to keep the war going (there are rumours of some success in the peace negotiations, but it's hard to say if they'll lead to any real results).

"All in all, no other economy in the world has experienced anything like this – extreme de-globalization in a matter of days."

https://twitter.com/IlyaMatveev_/status/1503789373069877248

[Pohjolas Daughter]

FYI, the Ukrainian president is addressing the US Congress (currently on CNN).

PD

[Todd]

Public Expresses Mixed Views of U.S. Response to Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

35% favor U.S. military action even if it risks nuclear conflict with Russia

Comparable shares in both parties (36% of Republicans, 35% of Democrats) say they would favor military action even if it risks nuclear conflict with Russia.

[Todd]

Xi considered invading Taiwan this fall: Leaked FSB document

Putin may have delayed the next military crisis a bit.

[Karl Henning]

Raising the question: Do both Putin and Trump believe their own bullshit?

Russia's sanctions on Biden, Hillary Clinton and others mocked by White House

The White House press secretary noted that U.S. officials do not have money in Russian bank accounts

[Karl Henning]

Opinion: Sorry, President Zelensky. The U.S. cannot risk direct war with Russia.

By Henry Olsen
Columnist

Today at 12:09 p.m. EDT

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's virtual address on Wednesday to Congress was moving and persuasive. He's right that the United States can and should do more to help his country win its existential fight with Russia. But he's wrong to ask us to risk direct war with Russia by establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Zelensky is the president of a proud and brave people. He would fall short of his responsibility to them if he did not pursue every possible means for their survival and victory. It is in Ukraine's interest to entice larger, more powerful nations to enter the conflict and take its side. He knows that such support would tip the balance toward Ukraine and ensure that Russia would eventually have to offer acceptable terms for peace.

That's why he has tried to draw common threads between his country and the others that he beseeches. He invoked Churchill and Shakespeare when addressing the British House of Commons and told leaders of the European Union that Ukraine's battle is Europe's. It's also why he analogized the attacks on Ukraine to the attacks at Pearl Harbor and on 9/11.

If his audience can envision themselves in his nation's suffering, they might be moved to come to his nation's rescue. But great nations must be ruled by the mind, not the heart. And the mind counsels support for Ukraine, not war.

Russia would not simply surrender in the face of U.S. airplanes over the battlefield in Kyiv or Kharkiv. It would shoot back, and it would use weapons systems based in Russia itself to do so. Thus, a no-fly zone inevitably means war with Russia, not just on Ukrainian territory.

That's not in our interest, especially because Russia has troops and military bases in many other countries. It has positioned its navy to combat potential NATO intervention from aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean and Aegean seas, and it conducted large-scale naval exercises in the northern Atlantic in the run-up to the invasion. These moves clearly signal Russia's willingness to fight back beyond Ukraine should the United States or NATO enter the war directly.

Russia also has tacit supporters worldwide that could involve themselves if the war expands. China signaled again this week that it stands between Russia and the West in this conflict. It might levy its own economic sanctions against the West if it takes to Ukraine's skies. That's what the Arab nations did in 1973 by embargoing the export of oil to the United States in retaliation for its decision to resupply Israel during the Yom Kippur War. That act plunged the United States into a deep recession, creating an energy crisis that dominated U.S. decision-making for the rest of the decade.

Chinese-imposed sanctions could severely harm the United States. China supplies 80 percent of the world's rare-earth minerals, a crucial component for high-tech manufacturing. The United States also sources many important medicines from China, and many U.S. exporters are dependent upon Chinese sales. In other words, China has the power to throw the United States and the rest of the world into a recession.

These considerations mean that the United States and its allies should reject Zelensky's plea to close the Ukrainian skies. Ukraine's suffering is terrible, but it does not rise to the level that we should risk a global economic or shooting war for which we are not prepared.

[Gurn Blanston]

Opinion: Sorry, President Zelensky. The U.S. cannot risk direct war with Russia.

By Henry Olsen
Columnist

Today at 12:09 p.m. EDT

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's virtual address on Wednesday to Congress was moving and persuasive. He's right that the United States can and should do more to help his country win its existential fight with Russia. But he's wrong to ask us to risk direct war with Russia by establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Zelensky is the president of a proud and brave people. He would fall short of his responsibility to them if he did not pursue every possible means for their survival and victory. It is in Ukraine's interest to entice larger, more powerful nations to enter the conflict and take its side. He knows that such support would tip the balance toward Ukraine and ensure that Russia would eventually have to offer acceptable terms for peace.

That's why he has tried to draw common threads between his country and the others that he beseeches. He invoked Churchill and Shakespeare when addressing the British House of Commons and told leaders of the European Union that Ukraine's battle is Europe's. It's also why he analogized the attacks on Ukraine to the attacks at Pearl Harbor and on 9/11.

If his audience can envision themselves in his nation's suffering, they might be moved to come to his nation's rescue. But great nations must be ruled by the mind, not the heart. And the mind counsels support for Ukraine, not war.

Russia would not simply surrender in the face of U.S. airplanes over the battlefield in Kyiv or Kharkiv. It would shoot back, and it would use weapons systems based in Russia itself to do so. Thus, a no-fly zone inevitably means war with Russia, not just on Ukrainian territory.

That's not in our interest, especially because Russia has troops and military bases in many other countries. It has positioned its navy to combat potential NATO intervention from aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean and Aegean seas, and it conducted large-scale naval exercises in the northern Atlantic in the run-up to the invasion. These moves clearly signal Russia's willingness to fight back beyond Ukraine should the United States or NATO enter the war directly.

Russia also has tacit supporters worldwide that could involve themselves if the war expands. China signaled again this week that it stands between Russia and the West in this conflict. It might levy its own economic sanctions against the West if it takes to Ukraine's skies. That's what the Arab nations did in 1973 by embargoing the export of oil to the United States in retaliation for its decision to resupply Israel during the Yom Kippur War. That act plunged the United States into a deep recession, creating an energy crisis that dominated U.S. decision-making for the rest of the decade.

Chinese-imposed sanctions could severely harm the United States. China supplies 80 percent of the world's rare-earth minerals, a crucial component for high-tech manufacturing. The United States also sources many important medicines from China, and many U.S. exporters are dependent upon Chinese sales. In other words, China has the power to throw the United States and the rest of the world into a recession.

These considerations mean that the United States and its allies should reject Zelensky's plea to close the Ukrainian skies. Ukraine's suffering is terrible, but it does not rise to the level that we should risk a global economic or shooting war for which we are not prepared.

Ditto.

🤠😎

[Florestan]

Opinion: Sorry, President Zelensky. The U.S. cannot risk direct war with Russia.

By Henry Olsen
Columnist

Today at 12:09 p.m. EDT

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's virtual address on Wednesday to Congress was moving and persuasive. He's right that the United States can and should do more to help his country win its existential fight with Russia. But he's wrong to ask us to risk direct war with Russia by establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Zelensky is the president of a proud and brave people. He would fall short of his responsibility to them if he did not pursue every possible means for their survival and victory. It is in Ukraine's interest to entice larger, more powerful nations to enter the conflict and take its side. He knows that such support would tip the balance toward Ukraine and ensure that Russia would eventually have to offer acceptable terms for peace.

That's why he has tried to draw common threads between his country and the others that he beseeches. He invoked Churchill and Shakespeare when addressing the British House of Commons and told leaders of the European Union that Ukraine's battle is Europe's. It's also why he analogized the attacks on Ukraine to the attacks at Pearl Harbor and on 9/11.

If his audience can envision themselves in his nation's suffering, they might be moved to come to his nation's rescue. But great nations must be ruled by the mind, not the heart. And the mind counsels support for Ukraine, not war.

Russia would not simply surrender in the face of U.S. airplanes over the battlefield in Kyiv or Kharkiv. It would shoot back, and it would use weapons systems based in Russia itself to do so. Thus, a no-fly zone inevitably means war with Russia, not just on Ukrainian territory.

That's not in our interest, especially because Russia has troops and military bases in many other countries. It has positioned its navy to combat potential NATO intervention from aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean and Aegean seas, and it conducted large-scale naval exercises in the northern Atlantic in the run-up to the invasion. These moves clearly signal Russia's willingness to fight back beyond Ukraine should the United States or NATO enter the war directly.

Russia also has tacit supporters worldwide that could involve themselves if the war expands. China signaled again this week that it stands between Russia and the West in this conflict. It might levy its own economic sanctions against the West if it takes to Ukraine's skies. That's what the Arab nations did in 1973 by embargoing the export of oil to the United States in retaliation for its decision to resupply Israel during the Yom Kippur War. That act plunged the United States into a deep recession, creating an energy crisis that dominated U.S. decision-making for the rest of the decade.

Chinese-imposed sanctions could severely harm the United States. China supplies 80 percent of the world's rare-earth minerals, a crucial component for high-tech manufacturing. The United States also sources many important medicines from China, and many U.S. exporters are dependent upon Chinese sales. In other words, China has the power to throw the United States and the rest of the world into a recession.

These considerations mean that the United States and its allies should reject Zelensky's plea to close the Ukrainian skies. Ukraine's suffering is terrible, but it does not rise to the level that we should risk a global economic or shooting war for which we are not prepared.

Yes.

[JBS]

Xi considered invading Taiwan this fall: Leaked FSB document

Putin may have delayed the next military crisis a bit.

The quality of what FSB produces has been called into question lately. I assume you know this...

[Todd]

The quality of what FSB produces has been called into question lately. I assume you know this...

Note the linked source.  Probably a good idea going forward.

[Florestan]

The whole no-fly-zone problem is rather moot as Ukrainian cities are attacked with missiles. Has anyone seen or filmed a massive airplane bombing? I reckon that two or three such carpet bombings would have shelled Kiev to the ground long ago. Actually this is perhaps the biggest mistery of this war: why don't Russians use the aviation? Room for speculation aplenty.

[Todd]

The whole no-fly-zone problem is rather moot as Ukrainian cities are attacked with missiles. Has anyone seen or filmed a massive airplane bombing? I reckon that two or three such carpet bombings would have shelled Kiev to the ground long ago. Actually this is perhaps the biggest mistery of this war: why don't Russians use the aviation? Room for speculation aplenty.

Multiple reasons.  Still best to be wary of the Russian Air Force, at least just a bit: US Air Force's view of 'near-peer' Russia unchanged by war in Ukraine

[Florestan]

Multiple reasons. 

Such as?

[Todd]

Such as?

Try this

Also, I guess you did not click the link.

Given that no one on this forum has been responsible for planning theater-wide military actions, I think op-eds and Google news articles will fill the void.

[Florestan]

Try this

I should have thought you didn't trust graduates of the Google University.

Also, I guess you did not click the link.

I did click it but it didn't answer my question.

If you don't have the, or don't want to, answer that's fine by me --- there's just no need to be sarcastic, especially not with me of all people (and you know very well what I mean).

[Todd]

I did click it but it didn't answer my question.

There is no single answer, so if that is what you seek, you will be disappointed.

[Florestan]

There is no single answer, so if that is what you seek, you will be disappointed.

I beg your pardon? You wrote:

Multiple reasons. 

Then I asked:

Such as?

And then instead of a reason or two (which is what I asked for, in my admittedly non-native English) I got only sarcasm --- which once again was not warranted in any way.

Never mind, though. Let's leave it at that.